Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 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 in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Description of Proposed Fill Project DER proposes to deny three alternative proposals to fill all or part of Petitioners' real property located in Key West, Florida. The property is rectangular, approximately three acres in size, with 300 feet bordering Roosevelt Boulevard (High-Way A1A) to the south and approximately 300 feet bordering Key West International Airport to the north. The easterly property line is 489.4 feet and the westerly line is 434.63 feet. The Straits of Florida (Atlantic Ocean) are immediately on the other side of Roosevelt Boulevard to the south. The property has a strip of approximately 90 feet of upland and transitional wetland adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard, with the rest of the property being covered by a salt pond of approximately 40 acres in size (Jnt. Ex. 1). Petitioners initially submitted a permit application in July, 1983, to fill the entire property for construction of multifamily housing units. On May 4, 1984, after discussion with a DER permitting official, Petitioners submitted a second application containing two alternative, less extensive development proposals. The first alternative involves the placement of fill over a 300' x 230' area (approximately 9722 cubic yards) extending 230 feet from the property along Roosevelt Boulevard out into the water. This alternative would entail construction of 24 family housing units, consisting of six basic structures, each four-stories high. The second alternative involves subdividing the property into six separate lots connected by a central fill road with cul-de- sac. Each lot, approximately .4 acres in size, would contain a single family house on pilings and an associated fill pad for parking. The fill pads would be connected to a approximately 300' x 30' entrance road constructed on fill material. Presumably, this second alternative would contain the same amount of total fill as required in the first. As it presently exists, the salt pond (a part of which applicant would fill) serves several significant and beneficial environmental functions. In regard to water quality, the pond stores, filters, and purifies large quantities of storm water which drain from the airport and South Roosevelt Boulevard. The filling of any portion of this pond would diminish this capacity. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Because of their relatively isolated nature, the organic detrital material that is produced from the leaf litter of fringing mangroves is broken down into a very fine and readily usable form by bacteria. As a result, when there is an occasional exchange between the salt pond and tidal waters, the exported organics are in a very desirable form for higher trophic levels in the food web such as small fish, crustaceans, filter feeders, and various larval forms of marine life. (Jnt. Ex. 1) The salt pond proper provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, most notable of which are avifauna. The pond has apparently become established as a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem providing permanent and temporary food, shelter and refuge for many faunal species which play significant and necessary ecological roles both in the salt ponds and other tidal and brackish water systems. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the placement of fill and the displacement of present salt pond habitat, water quality and the biological resources in the immediate and surrounding areas would be expected to undergo degradation. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the encroachment of development in this area, which presently lacks residential development, biological integrity standards would be expected to fall below acceptable levels. The proposed fill areas would reduce wind- driven circulation in the pond so as to stress levels of oxygen, salinity, temperature and turbidity. Runoff from the proposed fill would introduce nutrients and elevate turbidity during storm events. Finally, elevated turbidity levels could be expected during the actual filling process and the various species of fish and wildlife now located over the project site would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and permanently displaced in the long term through the loss of habitat. (Jnt. Ex. 1) There is a 40' zoning setback and another 50' easement owned by the City of Key West, which together form a 90' strip on the property adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard. This 90-foot strip is largely upland and some transitional wetland. There is no zoning impediment to any of the development alternatives proposed by Petitioners. The property is currently zoned R2H (multifamily residential) by the City of Key West. II. DER's Action on the Application After DER received and reviewed Petitioners initial application on July 22, 1983, a completeness summary was sent on August 17, 1983, requesting additional information. DER received the additional information on March 23, 1984, after which it notified Petitioners that additional information was needed. Petitioners met with DER officials on April 20, 1984, and submitted additional information on May 4, 1984, including the two alternative proposals. DER issued the "Intent to Deny" all three of the proposed projects on July 19, 1984 (Jnt. Ex. 1). On May 16, 1984, a DER Environmental Specialist visited the site of the proposed projects and conducted a biological and water quality assessment. This assessment was later submitted, in report form, as the Permit Application Appraisal, dated June 7, 1984. This appraisal, uncontested by Petitioners, indicates that each of the three fill proposals would take place in waters of the state and result in water quality violations under Rules 17-3.051(1), 17- 3.061(2)(c), (j) and (r); 17-3.121(7), (13) and (28); Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code; and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Water quality problems associated with the project were identified as diminished storm water treatment, reduced beneficial deterital material, stress on oxygen levels, salinity, temperature, and turbidity, and an introduction of nutrients. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Although a DER dredge and fill permitting official testified that any filling of the salt pond would be detrimental to the birds and animals which feed there on a daily basis, and that, in his view, a "substantial amount" of filling would not be allowed by DER, there are development projects (other than the three presented by Petitioners) which, in his view, may qualify for a permit under DER rules. DER has, in the past, issued permits authorizing the construction of above-ground residences over wetland properties. Under DER's permitting standards, one or more single-family residences could be built on the property if the structures were built on stilts, did not violate water quality standards, had acceptable drainage, and did not result in adverse storm water discharges. In evaluating such an application, any mitigation an applicant could provide, such as enhancing flushing in the salt ponds by the installation of a culvert to open water, would be balanced against any adverse impacts expected from the filling activity. The three alternative filling proposals submitted by Petitioners (including drawings and designs) do not, however as yet, fall within or satisfy these general perimeters of permitting acceptability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to fill (containing three alternative proposals) be denied for failure to prove compliance with applicable permitting standards contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17- 4, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Applications. Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road Site). The County's application for Permit DC51-189086 was filed on 11/13/90. It sought to construct Moon Lake Road WWTP, Sprayfield, and Percolation Pond System. The design treatment capacity sought for Moon Lake Road WWTP was .800 MGD, for the sprayfield was .215 MGD, and for the percolation pond system was .185 MGD. The application for Permit DC51-189086 was denied on 2/13/92. Notice of the proposed agency action was published in accordance with Department requirements, and the County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. On 11/16/93, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to exclude the proposed Moon Lake Road WWTP, in order to defer construction of the WWTP to a later date. On 1/5/94, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to withdraw the request for a surface water permit and a stormwater permit. Due to the recent interagency agreement between the Department and SWFWMD, the County decided to defer surface water and stormwater permitting for this facility until after the construction permit was issued. Permit DO51-194674 (Wesley Chapel WWTP/Oakley Grove Site). The County's application for Permit DO51-194674 was timely filed on 2/12/91. The application sought authorization to operate the County's Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at .750 MGD and Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System at .600 MGD. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was denied by the Department on 7/18/91. The notice of permit denial alleges that the County failed to submit requested additional information, that an inspection of the site had revealed a 6-inch irrigation pipe undermining a percolation pond berm, and that the Certificate of Completion of Construction did not accurately reflect observed aspects of the disposal area. The County timely petitioned for administrative hearing. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was amended on 11/16/93 to limit the treatment capacity of Wesley Chapel WWTP to .600 MGD. Permit DO51-199516 (Ryals Road Site). The portion of this case concerning Permit DO51-199516 involves the County's request to reactivate operations at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The requested disposal capacity is .1075 MGD, which is about half of its disposal capacity when it previously was in operation. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is a reuse facility owned by the County, and constructed in 1985 as a replacement for nearby Oaks Royal Percolation Pond, where a sinkhole had developed. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-100407) for the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1985. The Department granted the application for Permit DC51-100407 on 7/10/85. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System's permitted disposal rate was about .200 MGD. Construction of Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was completed in 1986, and operation began immediately thereafter due to the appearance of a new sinkhole at the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond. The Department was advised of the new sinkhole in the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond in 1/86 and in 2/86 and was advised that reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP was being diverted to Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operated from 1986 through 1989. It received reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP. A sinkhole developed in Ryals Road Percolation Pond System in 1987. The County backfilled the sinkhole and advised the Department of the problem. The County's initial operation permit application (#DO51-142683) for Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DO51-142683 in 8/89. It does not contain any permit conditions dealing with the potential for sinkhole formation at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. At the time, the Department anticipated that the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System would be in operation for only a year or two. The County operated Ryals Road Percolation Pond System under Permit DO51-142683 until sometime in 1990, without further sinkhole or land subsidence problems. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was taken out of service in 1990, when Oaks Royal WWTP was abandoned. Oaks Royal WWTP was taken out of service because, after completion of Southeast WWTP, it no longer was needed. On a routine monitor well sampling report to the Department dated April 30, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that the Oaks Royal WWTP had been taken out of service prior to January, 1990. On a subsequent report dated May 29, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that monitor wells at the Ryals Road site had been destroyed and that no ground water samples could be taken or reported. This report also noted that no arrangements were being made to replace the monitor wells since the Oaks Royal WWTP was "no longer on-line." The County never formally withdrew or surrendered its operation permit DO51-142683 for the operation of the Oaks Royal WWTP and Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Department never took action to revoke or terminate the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit and never gave the County notice of intent to do so. The County first notified the Department of its intent to "revive" the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System through letters dated 4/12/91 and 4/18/91. The County attempted to reactivate the facility by letter rather than permit application because it believed the facility was already authorized to operate pursuant to Permit DO51-142683. After receiving no response to its 4/91 letters, the County sent the Department a follow-up letter dated 6/10/91 again asking to "revive" Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. This letter refers to the County's request to reactivate the system as a "minor modification" to Permit DC51-150232C, which authorized construction activities at the County's Southeast WWTP. The letter sought a minor modification of the construction permit instead of an amendment to Permit DO51-142683 because the County was unsure of the status of the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operation permit and had been advised by Department employees that this would be the most expeditious way to handle its request. The County's request for a minor modification was assigned permit identification number DO51-199516, and the "O" signifies an operation permit application. The County does not know why its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was treated by the Department as a new operation permit application. The County first learned that its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System had been assigned a new operation permit identification number when it received notice of permit denial. The "application" for Permit DO51-199516 was denied on 8/26/91. The County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial for Permit DO51-199516 alleged that Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is not suitable for rapid rate disposal due to the high potential for subsidence activity, that this potential is demonstrated by the appearance of sinkholes in 1985, 1986 and 1987, and that boring logs and other information in the ground water monitoring plan shows a potential for sinkhole formation. Regardless of the confusion in processing the County's request regarding the Ryals Road site, the County announced clearly and unequivocally at final hearing that it no longer wanted its request to reactivate the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP). Rather, it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a), and it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit). Alternatively, and only if it was determined that Permit DO51-142683 no longer was in effect, the County wanted its request to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP) or as an application for a new operation permit. Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit) expired on August 5, 1994. Drainage Ditches in Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Percolation Pond Systems. Drainage ditches are present at the Oakley Grove and several other County Percolation Pond Systems; they are proposed for the Moon Lake Percolation Pond System. (Drainage ditches are not present at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System.) A "relief drainage" system is a system of drainage ditches used to lower a high water table, which is generally flat or of a very low gradient. There are 4 types of relief drainage ditch systems: parallel, herringbone, double main and random. Correspondence between the County's consultants and the Department usually described the on-site drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond systems as "perimeter ditches." Although the County's ditches do not necessarily completely surround each pond, it is a fair description of the ditches. They are a network of ditches that, together, surround the sites. The network varies to some degree from site to site. Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System is designed to have double main type drainage ditch system; Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System has a random type ditch system. The County's consultants began referring to the ditches as "perimeter ditches" in part because it was a term used by members of the Department's staff. But both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Ground water will seep into the relief drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond system. During and after any rainfall event, water infiltrating into the ground in close proximity to a drainage ditch will be encouraged to seep into the ditch. During seasonally wet periods, when ground water elevations tend to rise above normal levels, ground water both on and off- site will seep into the ditches. After extreme rainfall events delivering large volumes of water to the site, elevated ground water mounding would occur and ground water will seep into the drainage ditches. The invert elevations of the relief drainage ditches located at the County's percolation pond systems were set to the approximate normal water level elevation. As a result, the ditch inverts will normally be wet, and ground water normally will seep into ditches in normal weather conditions even if the water table is not being recharged by reclaimed water. The principal design goals for the drainage features located at the County's percolation pond systems are: (a) ditch construction provides an inexpensive source of fill material; (b) using on-site ditch material allows pond bottoms to be kept higher above the water table; (c) ditches buffer adjacent property from recharge impacts; (d) ditches buffer the site from adjacent land use practices; (e) ditches provide a constant boundary condition by flattening seasonal fluctuation in rainfall, runoff, water table elevations and the potentiometric surface of the deeper aquifer system; (f) ditches serve to quickly drain rainfall that may hinder the recharge performance of the percolation ponds; (g) ditches provide a visible indication of site performance; and (h) ditches are part of the site's stormwater and overflow system. Although the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches is not the primary goal of these drainage features, it is recognized that some reclaimed water would be collected in the ditches as a result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds, depending on the application rate and weather conditions. It is possible that reclaimed water applied to the percolation ponds will percolate into the ground and combine with native ground water, and that the resulting mixture will infiltrate the drainage ditches. As with all land application systems, water applied to percolation ponds will migrate downgradient in the surficial aquifer system and blend with other waters recharging this system. Surface waters downgradient from percolation pond cells, whether in the relief drainage ditches or off-site, will receive a blend of rainwater, direct runoff, water originating from the percolation ponds and ground water, in various proportions. Most surface water is designed to leave the Oakley Grove site at the eastern discharge point. Surface water leaving the site at this point flows east under Interstate 75 and into a forested wetland, approximately 150 acres in size, located to the east of I-75. Surface water then flows from the southwest corner of the wetland into a linear wetland and channel system, which conveys water west, ultimately discharging into Big Cypress Swamp, another wetland system several thousand acres in size. The other discharge point is from the southwestern corner of the Oakley Grove site. From the southwest outfall, surface water flows into a wetland and channel system that conveys water west and then north into Big Cypress Swamp. Surface water also is designed to discharge from the Moon Lake Road site via two outfalls. Both are located on the east side of the site. Discharges would enter an adjacent cypress wetland system consisting of hundreds of acres and meander approximately two miles in a northeasterly direction to a point of intersection with the upper reaches of the Pithlachascotee River. Status of Reclaimed Water Travelling 100 Feet or More from Percolation Pond Cells to Drainage Ditches. The Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water. This practice is derived from Department rules and from the Department's expectation that effluent percolating into the ground water and travelling 100 feet through the soil no longer will have the characteristics of effluent, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. One hundred feet generally is recognized in the engineering field as usually sufficient area to permit adequate treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent as it travels through the soil matrix so to be virtually indistinguishable from normally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. The treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent occurs through a variety of chemical, biological, absorptive and physical processes that are well documented in the field of sanitary engineering. Although the Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water, the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet of travel through the ground makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to be virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. This is reflected in the fact that Department's rules make 100 feet the minimum setback distance. In contrast to diffuse discharges to nearby surface water bodies, the Department's rules treat discharges to surface waters via a ditch system that collects and concentrates reclaimed water differently. By rule, such discharges require a surface water discharge permit. If reclaimed water travels through the ground far enough before infiltrating drainage ditches, it would be treated and diluted to the point that it is in fact indistinguishable in chemical or biological composition from native ground water and no longer should be considered reclaimed water or effluent. How far is the dispositive question in determining whether a surface water discharge permit will be required. Setback Distance from On-Site Ditches to Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Sites. Relief drainage ditches at Moon Lake Percolation Pond System are designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the pond to the ditch invert. Relief drainage ditches at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System also were designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the percolation pond to the ditch invert. However, primarily as a result of changes to the drainage system required by SWFWMD as part of its permitting process, and minor siting imperfections which occurred during construction, parts of the drainage ditch system at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System are located closer than 100 feet from the percolation ponds. To locate all Oakley Grove drainage ditches 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, it will be necessary to reduce the size of the ponds. In the new configuration, the design loading rate would have to be increased to .8 from .58 gpd/ft2 (gallons per day per square foot) of pond bottom in order to maintain the .600 MGD design loading capacity of the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System. Even assuming the predicted hydraulic capacity of Oakley Grove site, the actual disposal capacity for the site cannot be determined until it is determined how much of a reduction in pond size is required. The County has not made those determinations yet. Seepage of Reclaimed Water from Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System to Drainage Ditches. Although constructed with a design disposal capacity of .600 MGD, until recently the County has loaded the ponds at Oakley Grove under the Oakley Grove construction permit at an actual average rate of approximately .200 MGD. (Maximum actual loading has been approximately .250 to .270 MGD.) This average loading rate required effluent to be loaded onto the ponds at the rate of approximately .19 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. In November, 1993, the County stopped loading the ponds at Oakley Grove. During site visits to Oakley Grove on 4/15/91, 7/11/91, 7/12/91, 8/27/91, 10/12/93 and 12/7/93, Department personnel observed that ditch inverts, and some points even higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts, were wet and that water had collected in some the ditches, while other ditches and surface water outfalls were not wet. The wet ditches and berms seemed to correspond with the loading of ponds. Rainfall at the Oakley Grove site during the 10-day period immediately preceding these Department site visits was as follows: Site Visit Inches of rainfall Gallons of rainfall 4/15/91 3.58 9,786,659 7/11/91 5.41 14,789,337 7/12/91 5.60 15,308,742 8/27/91 2.91 7,955,078 10/12/93 1.02 2,788,378 12/7/93 0.03 82,011 The precise source of all of the water saturating the wet berms and ditch bottoms observed by the Department personnel was not clear from the evidence. Some of the wet berms and ditch bottoms probably were the result of rainfall that collected in portions of the ditch system due to uneven grading during construction, modifications to the ditch system required by SWFWMD, and the County's maintenance practices. But the evidence also suggests that seepage was occurring from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, in some cases at points higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. It also was not clear from the evidence whether the apparent seepage from the percolation ponds into the drainage ditches was occurring more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of the percolation ponds. If less, the seepage may be an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by computer flow models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. Oakley Grove was designed to recharge the surficial aquifer without short-circuiting the designed 100 foot setback from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, even at the design disposal capacity of .600 MGD. (Cady Prefiled, 175). The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as designed. Based on the assumed hydraulic capacity of the site, water balances prepared by the County assert that none of the water in the ditches would come from the percolation ponds at .200 MGD, or even at .300 MGD. The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. The Oakley Grove relief drainage ditches were authorized by a SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") Permit (i.e., Permit #405124, issued 7/12/89). This permit established two surface water quality monitoring sites for the off-site discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches and requires that any water discharged off-site meet surface water quality standards. The County has collected data from these monitoring sites since 1991. This data does not indicate any violations of surface water quality standards due to the discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches to off- site receiving waters. (SWFWMD has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action against the County as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to receiving waters, and Permit #405124 remains active.) However, the data indicate that the surface water quality has been worse, with respect to several parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for NOx-N, as high as .600 MGD.) This may be another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. MGD. No load testing was done at Oakley Grove at more than .250 to .270 Even at the historical loading rate, the evidence did not reflect that the County undertook to determine whether, under different weather conditions, reclaimed water was coming to the surface either in the drainage ditches or higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. Nor was there evidence that systematic testing of the water quality in the ditches was conducted. In light of the evidence of seepage into ditches, either more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of ponds, it was not proven that the site has the capacity to accept effluent at the design rate of .8 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. It was, however, proven by evidence introduced as Department Exhibit 32 that .075 MGD is a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on- site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions. Alleged Settlement Offer. Department Exhibit 32 is a January 27, 1992, letter from the County to the Department. It enclosed a letter to the County from the County's engineering consultant and an engineering report from a new hydrogeologic consultant to the County. The January 27, 1992, letter referenced a December 16, 1991, meeting "concerning acceptable rated disposal capacity" for the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System and states that the enclosed hydrogeology report "verifies the rated capacity [for Oakley Grove] at 75,000 gpd." (The report stated that its purpose was "to estimate a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on-site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions.") It concluded that a hydraulic loading of the Wesley Chapel WWTP can be justified by combining the 75,000 gpd disposal capacity for Oakley Grove with the 100,000 gpd already permitted for the Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System. Nowhere is Department Ex. 32 in fact identified as a settlement offer or as having any connection to a settlement offer in this or any other case. It is found that Dept. Ex. 32 was part of the process by which the parties successfully negotiated the settlement of the County's permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP, Permit Application No. DC51-205143. The Department issued a permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP (with a .075 MGD limit on disposal at Oakley Grove) on August 31, 1992. The County acceded to reduction of the actual disposal capacity at Oakley Grove pending the disposition of its application for an operation permit for Oakley Grove, and construction of the modifications was completed in late 1993. Ground Water Quality at Oakley Grove. During the time that Oakley Groves has been in operation, monitor wells have detected no violations of G-II ground water quality standards except for nitrates. Analysis of initial ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System in approximately January, 1991, detected no nitrate violations. The first quarterly reports after the County started loading the ponds began showing exceedances for nitrates. Exceedances continued to be reported in every quarter until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System demonstrates that nitrate concentrations have gone down over time. On average for the entire Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, including upgradient background monitoring wells, nitrate concentrations have remained below the 10 mg/l Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate from approximately August, 1992, until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. The most recent quarterly sampling of the monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System occurred in 11/93. The report was submitted to the Department in 1/94. It showed no exceedances of the Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate in any of the monitor wells. However, it is not clear from the evidence whether the reports reflected the effects of reclaimed water being applied to the site. The reclaimed water applied to Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System probably is not the sole reason for the elevated nitrate concentrations that have been reported. Agricultural fertilizer was used at the site prior to acquisition by the County. Nitrates from the fertilizer have remained in the soil matrix. The loading of the ponds began to liberate the nitrates from the soil matrix and to flush the nitrates downgradient to the monitor wells. As the preexisting nitrates have been flushed out, nitrate levels have dropped. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System suggests that operation of the facility at historical loading rates (approximately .200 MGD) probably will not result in continued ground water quality violations. Systematic load testing would help answer the question more definitively. Surface Water Quality Considerations. The County did not intend for its percolation pond disposal systems either at Oakley Groves or at Moon Lake Road to result in a surface water discharge that would require a surface water discharge permit, and it has not applied for one at either site. Not having applied for a surface water discharge permit, the County has not submitted either a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL) study or a plan to do a WQBEL study. In lieu of a WQBEL study, the County presented evidence of surface water quality consisting primarily of an evaluation of estimated predicted contributions, concentrations and characteristics of inputs entering the drainage ditches and a prediction of water quality characteristics at the point of discharge, given various application rates. Procedures commonly used and relied upon by water resource and sanitary engineers can be used to estimate the predicted quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates. The County utilized these procedures to predict, first, expected quality of water in the drainage ditches and, second, quality of water expected to be discharged off-site under various reclaimed water application rates. In applying the procedures, the County used lower removal efficiencies than those allowed in the EPA Design Manual and did not take into account additional pollutant removal efficiencies that will occur as the water in the ditches migrates off-site, resulting in higher predicted levels of contaminants in the water discharged off-site. The County also assumed the accuracy of the studies and models supporting the disposal capacities for the sites. Utilizing these procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated the following predictions for Oakley Grove: --At an application rate of .300 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N (ammonia) = 0.129 mg/l; NOx- N (nitrite-nitrate)= 0.141 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.177 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.477 mg/l; CBOD5 (carbonaceous biological oxygen demand)= 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.04 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 21 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .400 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.199 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.233 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.192 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.672 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.056 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 20 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .500 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.549 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.695 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.268 mg/l; total nitrogen = 1.65 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.25 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 15 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .600 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.759 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.975 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.314 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.23 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.36 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 12 per 100 ml. --At all reclaimed water application rates at the Oakley Grove site, it was estimated that TSS (total suspended solids) in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Utilizing the same procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Moon Lake Road site at the design application rate of .185 MGD would be: NH3-N = 0.769 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.995 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.297 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.25 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.37 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 3 per 100 ml. At the reclaimed water application rate proposed for Moon Lake Percolation Pond System, the County estimated that TSS in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Using those predictions of the water quality characteristics of off- site discharges from the relief drainage ditches, the County presented evidence that predicted generally and in a conclusory fashion that surface water discharges would not adversely impact the environment downstream. However, as already indicated, water quality monitoring for SWFWMD indicates water quality that has been worse at historical application rates, with respect to some parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for one parameter, as high as .600 MGD). County Ex. 162 summarized the surface water monitoring results at Oakley Grove for November, 1992, through November, 1993: East Outfall at I-75: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.721 mg/l, and mean 0.157 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-3.04 mg/l, and mean 0.416 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.250-1.10 mg/l, and mean 0.558 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.510- 3.77 mg/l, and mean 1.31 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-2.0, and mean 1.1 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.020-0.190 mg/l, and mean 0.054 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.1 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 1-5300 per 100 ml, and mean 352 per 100 ml. South Outfall at Trailer Park: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.270 mg/l, and mean 0.125 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-0.810 mg/l, and mean 0.285 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.285-1.01 mg/l, and mean 0.631 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.533-1.85 mg/l, and mean 1.04 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-3.0, and mean 1.4 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.010-0.120 mg/l, and mean 0.053 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.9 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 2-560 per 100 ml, and mean 50 per 100 ml. In addition, contrary to the County's predictions, estimates and arguments that surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site will be "virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water," the surface water quality monitoring for SWFWMD at historical application rates indicates that water quality has been clearly distinguishable from naturally occurring ground water. The surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site clearly have had higher levels of NOx-N and organic nitrogen than the water quality measured at the background monitoring station. In addition, pH levels have been significantly higher (approximately 7.35 versus 5.81). As previously found, the evidence suggests that seepage from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches has occurred at the Oakley Grove site at application rates of approximately .200 MGD. That evidence belies the assumptions underlying the County's surface water quality predictions at Oakley Grove and suggests that the site may not have the hydraulic and disposal capacities on which the surface water quality predictions for Oakley Grove were based. Until the actual hydraulic capacity and disposal capacity of the Oakley Grove site are determined, it is not possible to accurately predict the quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates (except that there was evidence to prove that no seepage into the ditches would occur at application rates of up to .075 MGD.) In contrast to the Oakley Grove site, no load testing of the Moon Lake Road site is possible until it is constructed. The County presented evidence that nitrogen would be absorbed by plants and sediments downstream from the point of discharge. However, the evidence assumed that discharges would take place only in the wet season. Potential downstream impacts resulting from a dry season discharge would depend upon: (1) the amount of water coming off the site; (2) the amount of water in the receiving wetlands; (3) the duration of the discharge; and (4) the frequency of the discharge. The County's evidence did not examine the impact of discharges under those conditions. The County did not present evidence quantifying the amount of anticipated inorganic nitrogen discharge, the rate of uptake in sediments or plants, and the impacts downstream. The potential for imbalance of flora and fauna downstream, the biological integrity downstream, and degradation downstream likewise were addressed only in a general and conclusory fashion. No in-depth study of downstream biology was completed by the County. As for pH, there was evidence that the background wetland had a pH of 5.81 in standard units, while the ditch discharge has had a pH of 7.35 in standard units. Standard units of pH are logarithmic values. The numbers are actually powers of 10 and cannot simply be added together and divided by 2 to get an average pH. To get an average pH, you have to convert the pH from the logarithmic value to the actual concentration of the hydrogen ion, take the average, and then convert the average to a logarithmic value. Using this method, the average of a pH of 5.81 standard units and a pH of 7.35 standard units equals 6.1 standard units. Wetlands are very sensitive to the decreases in acidity reflected by higher pH values. The County's predicted surface water quality analyses did not address pH at all. The County's evidence did not include an examination of existing downstream conditions and projecting potential discharge impacts. The County did not model dissolved oxygen downstream of discharge points and did not survey the biological community of the receiving waters regarding any discharge to determine what impact, if any, a potential discharge would have on waters of the state. Surface water quality considerations were not assessed in relation to the volume and frequency of the discharge. In addition, the County did not sample and analyze water quality in downstream receiving waters. Other Considerations at Moon Lake Road In evaluating the County's Moon Lake Road application for completeness, the Department requested that the County conduct a fracture trace analysis and, if it indicated a higher likelihood of subsidence or sinkholes, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) study. The County refused to do either, citing a desire to save County taxpayers money. Karst geology is typical in Pasco County. The County's site specific study of the Moon Lake Road site indicates the potential for karst activity by the presence of depressional features within and immediately adjacent to the site. It also indicates the presence of sinkholes on an immediately adjacent property. Starkey Wellfield is a regional public water supply wellfield located in Pasco County, which is part of the water supply network operated by West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority ("WCRWSA"). Starkey Wellfield currently operates under a consumptive use permit ("CUP") issued in 1988. The CUP authorizes the production of water from this facility at the annual average rate of 15 MGD and the maximum rate of 25 MGD. The nearest production well at the Starkey Wellfield is located slightly over half a mile from Moon Lake Road Sprayfield and slightly less than three-quarters of a mile from the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System. Water levels at the Moon Lake Road site probably will decline only about 0.7 foot due to the production of water from Starkey Wellfield. This decline is too small to significantly increase the potential for sinkhole formation or subsidence at the Moon Lake Road site. If the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System and Sprayfield can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner, it might be able to provide valuable recharge to the water table and the lower lying aquifer units. (This could reduce impacts caused by the wellfield.) But if there already is a sinkhole, or the high potential for one, at the Moon Lake site, use of the site for the disposal of reclaimed water could have a serious adverse effect on the Starkey Wellfield public water supply. Under these circumstances, it is found that the County has not yet given reasonable assurances that the Moon Lake Road site can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Evidence on Elements of Estoppel. The "Representations." Prior to the filing of the pending Oakley Grove operation permit application and Moon Lake Road construction permit projects, the Department had evaluated and permitted other similar County percolation pond systems (utilizing a system of drainage ditches to improve performance during wet weather conditions) in other locations. Saddlebrook Village Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has a design disposal capacity of .15 MGD and a permitted capacity of .098 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-140007) for this facility was filed in 9/87. The Department issued Permit DC51-140007 on 12/21/87. Specific Conditions 7 and 8 of Permit DC51-140007 address the relief drainage ditch system. These conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for primary drinking water standards, flow, dissolved oxygen ("DO"), pH, biological oxygen demand ("CBOD5") and total suspended solids ("TSS"). The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51- 140007. Thereafter, the County applied for a construction permit (#DC51-145550) in 2/88 to expand the system's disposal capacity to .250 MGD. The application sought to construct additional percolation pond basins and extend the ditch system to the new pond area. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 145550 on 7/26/88. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the modified facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 address the drainage ditch system. These conditions limit flow out of the drainage ditches to the rainy season and then only when the perimeter ditch flow does not exceed the upstream flow of the receiving water. The conditions also establish maximum effluent limits of 5 mg/l for CBOD5 and TSS, 3 mg/l for total nitrogen, 1 mg/l for total phosphorus and non-detectable for fecal coliform. Finally, the conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for flow, primary and secondary drinking water standards, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, fecal coliform, pH, CBOD5, and TSS. The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has operated pursuant to Permit DC51-145550, as needed through the final hearing. The surface water quality information required pursuant to Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 has been presented to the Department. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permits DC51-140007 and DC51-14550. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action due to discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was never upgraded to the .250 MGD capacity authorized by Permit DC51-14450. The County never applied for an operation permit covering this facility because the evolution of its wastewater system and changes in land use patterns resulted in the development of other disposal sites. Shady Hills Shady Hills Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design disposal capacity is .650 MGD, and its permitted capacity is .400 MGD. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-160307) for Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was filed in 1/89 or 2/89. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 160307 on 6/7/89. Permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 5/18/89 finding the County provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated according to applicable rules and standards. Initially, Permit DC51-160307 did not contain special conditions addressing the presence of drainage ditches. However, it was amended on 7/24/89, and the amended permit was assigned identification number DC51-160307A. Specific Conditions 3 and 4 of Permit DC51-160307A address the drainage ditch system and require that the drainage ditch system must be maintained to preclude off-site discharge of pollutants and that any water discharged off-site must meet state water quality standards. Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51-160307A, and has operated from late 1990 to present. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permit DC51-160307A. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. The County never applied for an operation permit covering Shady Hills Percolation Pond System because the associated WWTP is being expanded and the County decided to wait until the expansion program is completed to obtain the operation permit. Lake Padgett Lake Padgett (a/k/a, Land O'Lakes) Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design and permitted disposal capacity is 1.0 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-159899) for the facility was filed in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159899 on 5/16/89. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 4/27/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Condition 15 of Permit DC51-159899 addresses the drainage ditches. It requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to receiving waters must comply with Section 403.086, Florida Statutes (Grizzle- Figg standards). The Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System was constructed and operated pursuant to Permit DC51-159899. The County obtained an operation permit (#DO51- 205681) for the system on 3/26/92. Specific Condition 20 of the operation permit addresses the relief drainage ditch system, and requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to the receiving waters comply with Section 403.086. The facility has operated pursuant to Permit DO51-205681 since 3/26/92 to present. Off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System have not resulted in violations of Permit DC51- 159899 or Permit DC205681. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Construction of Oakley Grove The County conducted a site specific hydrogeologic and soil survey and effluent disposal study for the Oakley Grove site in late 1988. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-159755) for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1/89. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159755 on 6/22/89. The design and permitted disposal capacity for Oakley Grove is .600 MGD. The Oakley Grove permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 6/2/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurance that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Permit DC51-159755 does not contain any special conditions addressing the drainage ditches. One reason for this is that the surface water management permit issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") for this site contains conditions requiring the County to monitor any off-site discharges from the drainage ditches and prohibiting any violation of surface water quality standards. Consequently, there was no need for the Department to impose a similar permit condition. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was constructed under Permit DC51-159755. It was completed in 4/91 and has operated under that permit until approximately November, 1993. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System's actual disposal rate during the period of operation has been about .200 MGD. The "Detrimental Reliance." The County paid $1,200,000 to acquire the Oakley Grove site. The County declined to purchase other potential sites that also would have cost about $1,200,000 in 1988, but would have cost about $1,800,000 in 1993. Total costs for property acquisition, engineering and construction at Oakley Grove have been approximately $2,800,000. In addition, the Shady Hills, Lake Padgett, and Handcart Road Percolation Pond Systems were constructed or modified at a cost of about $2,600,000 after issuance of the construction permit for the Oakley Grove project. To the extent that the County is unable to use the .600 MGD design disposal capacity at Oakley Grove, and cannot replace the deficit, the County will have insufficient disposal capacity. It would cost the County over $500,000 to modify the Oakley Grove site so that it could make some other practicable use of the property, and it would take about 18 months and about $2,800,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility. During the time it would take to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. The County began planning a percolation pond system for the Moon Lake Road site in 1988, and paid $600,000 to acquire the site. The County does not own any of the potential effluent disposal sites that it passed over when acquiring the Moon Lake Road site. It would have cost about $660,000 to acquire a similar site in 1993. If the County is not permitted to construct the Moon Lake Road site, it cannot make any practicable use of that site. It would take about 18 months and about $500,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement wastewater effluent disposal facility for the Moon Lake Road site. During that time, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. Alleged Default Permit for Moon Lake Road. Upon receipt of the application for Permit DC51-189086, the Department sent the County a letter dated 12/12/90 requesting additional information. The 12/12/90 request for additional information cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County's consulting engineer responded, on behalf of the County, to the request for additional information by letter to the Department's Permitting Engineer, dated 2/28/91. The County response stated that the County disagreed with the Department's "judgment" that the County's application was incomplete. But it also stated in pertinent part: However, recognizing that responsible professionals disagree and the extent to which you are responsible for rejecting this work, we have attached appropriate information and clarifying responses to aid you in discharging your professional duty. . . . Assuming we receive authorization from our client and that you accept full professional responsibility for the decision we will consider modifying our documents accordingly. In any event we feel comfortable requesting that you consider our permit application complete. On 3/26/91, the Department requested additional information. Again, the request cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County never responded. Meanwhile, the parties began to discuss settlement. Finally, on 2/13/92, the Department issued its notice of intent to deny the application. Subject Matter Index of Agency Orders. The Department has no subject matter index of any of its orders taking action on permit applications between 1975 and 1981. After 1981, the Department has had a subject matter index of its orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. There never has been a subject matter index of Department orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has not been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. It would be impracticable, if not impossible, for the County to research such orders without a subject matter index. There is no central repository or computer database for all Department permit decisions. Some of its permitting files are located in its main Tallahassee office but many also are located in its seven district offices. Regardless of whether there is a central repository or computer database for orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings, there is no evidence that, after 1981, there have been any such orders reflecting the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. It was not proven that the County was unable, by reason of permitting files being located in both the main Tallahassee office and the various district offices, to research the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. Research at the seven district offices would have been more costly than if all files were centrally located, but there is no reason in this case to believe that the additional cost would have been prohibitive. Alleged Biased Review. David Rhodes is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed by the Department's Southwest District Office. His responsibilities mainly consist of reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. He was the Department's primary reviewer for geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of the County's applications for Permit DO51-194674 (Oakley Grove) and Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road), as well as Permit DC51-169994 (Handcart Road Percolation Pond System). He recommended denial of all three permit applications. On 2/18/91, David Rhodes contacted a County employee, Marshall Hughes, concerning the County's construction permit application for the Handcart Road Percolation Pond System and suggested "off-the-record" that the County discharge its geotechnical consultant, Richard Mortensen, and replace the proposed percolation pond system with a sprayfield. The County declined to terminate Mortensen. When Mortensen learned of David Rhodes's attempt to have the County fire him, Mortensen contacted David Rhodes's supervisor, Judith Richtar, on 3/4/91 to discuss this incident. Richtar told Mortensen that she was unaware of the matter, but would look into it and get back in touch with him. When Mortensen did not hear from Richtar for two weeks, he called her. She told him that David Rhodes had denied everything. Mortensen later learned that David Rhodes made comments and insinuations to two of his other clients disparaging his work performance and suggesting that his engineering firm was not competent. Mortensen was not satisfied with Richtar's handling of his complaint. On 4/25/94, he contacted Richtar's superior, Dr. Richard Garrity. Garrity asked for a letter detailing the incident. Mortensen wrote Garrity a letter dated 5/29/91 describing David Rhodes's communication with Hughes and requesting that Richtar be disciplined for her handling of this situation. David Rhodes was suspended by the Department without pay; however, Richtar was not disciplined. David Rhodes also wrote Mortensen a letter of apology for his communication with Marshall Hughes. The letter states his comments to Hughes should not be interpreted as a personal vendetta against Mortensen's engineering firm and that he hoped the incident could be put behind them so they could continue working on future projects. Rhodes admitted that he felt embarrassed after Garrity suspended him without pay and suggested that he write a letter of apology to Mortensen. About 3 months after David Rhodes's letter of apology, another Department employee, Joe May, filed 5 complaints with DBPR against Mortensen's P.E. license. The complaints identified the Handcart Road, Moon Lake Road, Oakley Grove, Lake Padgett and Westchase projects. (All of these are County projects, except for Westchase.) The complaints identified Richtar as a "contact person." Richtar knew about May's complaints before they were filed with DBPR and acquiesced to being identified in them as a contact person. Like David Rhodes, May is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed in the technical support section of the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa. His responsibilities include reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. However, he had no permit review involvement with respect to the Oakley Grove, Moon Lake Road, Handcart Road and Lake Padgett projects. Instead, the hydrogeological aspects of those projects were assigned to May's colleague, David Rhodes. Mortensen's attorney responded to May's 5 complaints in January, 1992. Copies of Mortensen's technical reports were attached to the response, including the site specific studies he had prepared for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road sites. DBPR referred May's complaints and Mortensen's technical reports to an independent engineering firm, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. for review. This firm prepared a report on January 21, 1993. The report exonerated Mortensen and found that May's complaints were without merit. DBPR took May's 5 complaints before a probable cause panel of the Board of Professional Engineers. The panel found there was no probable cause to pursue them. Mortensen was informed of this finding by DBPR's 8/31/93 letter. The Department has allowed David Rhodes to remain on the permit review team on the County's permit applications for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond Systems despite the fact Mortensen is the geotechnical consultant on these projects. It is not found that the continued presence of Rhodes and Richtar on the permit review team for the County's permit applications demonstrates the Department's prejudice against the County and its consultants. It is not found that the Department's decisions to deny the County's permit applications in this case were interposed for an improper purpose or that the denials were based on the permit reviewers' personal animosity against the County and its consultants, rather than on the merits of the facilities. However, relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation.
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 as follows: In Case No. 92-1604: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DC51-189086) to construct a sprayfield reuse disposal system at .215 MGD and a rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .185 MGD at Moon Lake Road, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of a fracture trace analysis, a ground penetrating radar analysis (if needed), and an appropriate WQBEL study. If the application subsequently is granted, including among the specific conditions (1) a requirement for systematic load testing and monitoring of ground and surface water quality under the construction permit, as a condition for issuance of an operation permit, and (2), if appropriate, requiring monitoring, reporting and safely repairing subsidences, collapse features and sinkholes in and around discharge points. See, e.g., Specific Condition 12, Hudson WWTP Permit DC51-130307 (County Ex. 170). Case No. 92-1653: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.600 MGD, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of: (1) additional systematic load testing, (2) systematic monitoring of ground and surface water quality, and (3) an appropriate WQBEL study. Granting the County a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.075 MGD, thereby supporting the operation of its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant to the extent of .075 MGD pending load testing, systematic monitoring and load testing and reconsideration of the application for an operation permit for more capacity, up to .600 MGD. Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant at .600 MGD and limiting its capacity to the available permitted disposal capacity. Case No. 92-1654: Denying, as moot, the County's application for a permit (application no. DO51-199516) to reactivate the operation of its Ryals Road rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .1075 MGD. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Speculative and unnecessary. 6.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 14.-30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-34. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 35.-43. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 45.-53. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 54. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation should have been done. 55.-58. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 59. Rejected as not proven. 60.-61. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 62. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation of soil permeability should have been done. 63.-76. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. ("Southwest" in 76. should be "Southeast.") 77.-79. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 80.-92. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 95.-113. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusions of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, conclusion of law. Conclusions of law. 117.-122. Accepted but generally subordinate and unnecessary. (There is no indication in this case that the Wesley Chapel WWTP cannot operate as designed, as permitted for construction, and as constructed, subject to available disposal capacity.) 123.-148. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven (Oakley Grove, without WQBEL studies, and Ryals Road without further investigation into significance of down-warping.) Otherwise, accepted: as to Ryals Road, moot, subordinate and unnecessary; as to Oakley Grove, incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies and fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, GPR. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 154.-155. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 156.-158. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 159. Rejected as not proven that the use of the label "perimeter ditches" is "not accurate" or that the County used the term only because the Department did. Rather, both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 160.-161. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 162. Accepted in the sense that the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches was not the primary goal of the drainage system. However, it was recognized that the collection of some reclaimed water in the ditches, especially under some weather conditions, was a necessary result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds. 163.-166. Accepted and incorporated. 167.-169. Rejected as not proven that the Department has "changed position" without promulgating any rule. The County's own permitting experience has shown that the Department has had concerns about the performance of percolation pond systems with perimeter drainage features. Those concerns have evolved over time. Before April, 1989, those concerns were given expression in special conditions in permits. In April, 1989, F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 were promulgated. The evidence does not prove that, before 9/15/89, the Department would not ever consider water in drainage ditches 100 feet from percolation ponds to be "reclaimed water." Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that approval or denial would be "automatic." The question was whether WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied. Rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. 173.-174. Accepted but unnecessary. (Current practice simply reflects the application of the current rules.) Rejected as not proven that the Department position had "completely changed," that the Department was "inalterably opposed to the ditches," or that the Department had before it the "reasonable assurances" provided at the other sites. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Again, rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven; also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that the Department stipulated that F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517(2) does not apply. Also, conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 186.-187. The implication that the Department does anything other than follow F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521 is rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 188.-190. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water infiltrating ditches at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road has been or will be "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water. Otherwise, generally, accepted, and 100 feet should be enough in most circumstances. But the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to no longer be considered reclaimed water. Also, the concentration of discharges via a ditch system is another factor to be considered. 191.-192. Accepted and incorporated. 193.-194. Rejected as not proven that they could be modified "easily" or without decreasing the permittable disposal capacity. Accepted (assuming they are built as designed) and incorporated. Last word should be "dry"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 198.-201. Rejected in part as being subordinate to facts not proven and contrary to those found. (Cady's testimony explained some of the wet ditch bottoms, but not all of them, and not the wet slopes of the berms.) Other parts, accepted and subordinate to facts found. 202.-206. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the approach makes certain assumptions, and the estimates or predictions will not be accurate if the assumptions are not. In the case of Oakley Grove, the assumptions concerning hydraulic capacity do not appear to have been accurate.) 207.-211. Rejected as not proven. See 202.-206., above. 212. Accepted and incorporated. 213.-219. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. But see 202.-206., above. 220.-226. Rejected as not proven as to Oakley Grove. See 202.-206., above. Accepted as to Moon Lake Road. Accepted as predictions based on the given assumptions, particularly as to hydraulic capacity of the site. 227.-230. Recitation of the experts' opinions, accepted as accurate recitations. Rejected that plant-life utilization of inorganic nitrogen allays Fricano's concerns. To the exact contrary, his concern is that plant-life will utilize the inorganic nitrogen in ways organic nitrogen would not be used, leading to undesirable environmental impacts. Also, rejected as not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters. 231.-232. Accepted and incorporated. 233.-234. Rejected as not proven. (The County expert's opinion assumed only wet weather discharges. Also, not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters.) 235.-239. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 240.-243. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 244. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 245.-248. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 249. Rejected as not proven that this can be done "easily." See 193.- 194., above. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 250.-251. Rejected as not proven. 252.-253. For both: last two sentences, rejected as not proven; the rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (F.A.C. Rule Chapter 17-600 forms did not apply.) Second and fourth sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 257.-258. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 259. Rejected as to the location of some ditches within 100 feet of the percolation ponds. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 260.-261. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 262. Rejected as not proven. 263.-269. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 270. Rejected as not proven. 271.-279. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The "change in policy" is reflected in F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522.) Accepted and incorporated. As to (b) and (c), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. As to (c), rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 287.-289. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 290. Accepted and incorporated. 291.-293. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 294.-295. Conclusions of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 299.-301. Accepted and incorporated. 302. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 303.-308. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. (The SWIM plans were not in evidence, and it is not clear whether they incorporate by reference the permitting requirements at issue in these proceedings.) 311.-312. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 316.-317. As to (g) and (h), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 318.-323. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 324. Conclusion of law. 325.-326. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 330.-331. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 332. Rejected as not proven. 333.-334. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 335. Last sentence of 335., rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted. 336.-350. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 351. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 352.-353. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 361.-362. Rejected that it was an offer to settle this case. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 363.-367. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 368.-371. Accepted and incorporated. 372.-401. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 402. Rejected as not proven. (They result from a combination of the nitrates in the reclaimed water and nitrates imbedded in the soil matrix from prior agricultural use. Also, unlike the Oakley Grove site, nitrate exceedances were observed at Wildcat Grove before application of any reclaimed water.) 403.-405. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 406. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water was being applied at the time. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 407. Rejected as not proven when nitrate exceedances will end. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 408. Rejected as not proven. See 406., above. 409. Rejected as not proven. See 407., above. 410.-416. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 417. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 418.-421. Rejected as not proven. 422. Accepted but unnecessary. 423. Rejected as not proven that their concerns are "unfounded" unless the source of reclaimed water is restricted to Deer Park WWTP. Otherwise, accepted but unnecessary. 424. Assuming performance in accordance with the application, accepted but unnecessary. 425.-430. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 431. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 432.-445. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 457.-465. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 466.-470. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 471. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 472. Rejected as not proven. See 310., above. 473.-475. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 476. Rejected as not proven. 477.-478. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (that the discharges are.) As to (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 484.-485. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted (although the fourth sentence is not complete) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven. 491.-493. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 494. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 495. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 496.-499. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 500. Last sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 501. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. (Also, Saddlebrook was permitted under different rules; now, the special conditions can only be established after WQBEL studies.) 502.-504. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it is understood that the constant head cell approach proved acceptable for purposes of estimating hydraulic capacity of the site but that it still did not accurately portray what would happen in the ditches and adjacent wetlands.) 505.-509. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 510. Rejected as not proven that the criticism was immaterial. See 502.- 504., above. 511. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 512.-524. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 525. Rejected as not proven that it would without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. (Accepted that it might.) 526. Rejected as not proven that he was directed to "speak in favor of the County's permit application." 527. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 528. Except that 500 feet is a minimum setback distance, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 529.-530. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 531. Rejected as not proven without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. See 525., above. 532.-534. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 535. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 536.-537. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL study. 538.-543. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 544. Rejected as not proven. (Rather, the County stated that it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a) and that it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit).) 545.-546. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 547.-552. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 553.-557. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. 563.-566. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 567. Subordinate to facts not proven. 568. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Also, rejected as not proven that the Ryals Road sinkhole was "small." Otherwise, accepted. All moot and unnecessary. 569. Rejected as subordinate to facts not proven. 570. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 571.-573. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence and word "stable," rejected as not proven. (He stated that the clay was "competent" and that the GPR could detect sinkholes down to 20 feet, but he did not comment specifically on the significance of the down- warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that it is "unknown." The evidence is not clear, but Richtar thought the sinkholes at Oaks Royal opened after construction. Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate, in part to facts not proven and in part to facts supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Except for characterization of sinkhole as being "small," accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. (It is not a substitute for further investigation into the cause of the down-warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 581.-582. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and conclusion of law. 583. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 584. First and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 585. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 586. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 587.-588. Rejected as not proven. (It assumes no new capacity.) 589.-590. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 591. Rejected as not proven. 592.-593. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 594. Rejected as not proven. 595. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 596. Third sentence, not proven. Rest, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 597.-599. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 600. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 601. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 602. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 603.-604. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that he is "one of the most vocal opponents." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes contacted Hughes or that it was Rhodes's primary purpose to suggest Mortensen's discharge. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes suggested Mortensen was incompetent. (Mortensen alleges he made "comments and insinuations" that "basically suggested that MEI was incompetent.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 610.-620. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 621. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 622. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes and Richtar were attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Also, rejected as not proven that the "Department" will not be "truly impartial." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation. 623. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. (The issue is whether they should be granted, not whether the reviewers should have recommended that they be granted.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Department's proposed findings of fact are numbered separately by facility: Oakley Grove Accepted and incorporated. "Rimmed" rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 3.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (No "wastewater" would discharge from the ditch system.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that this was "revealed" by staff inspections. (Under certain conditions, and at certain application rates, it was expected.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. At the time of some if not all of the Department inspections, water was being diverted from some of the main stormwater collection ditches. 13.-18. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 19. "Wastewater effluent ponds" is inaccurate description. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found, and as conclusion of law, that it is "typical." (The proposed finding seems to be describing a Level II WQBEL study.) 26.-29. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. (29. again seems to refer to a Level II WQBEL study.) 30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-36. Accepted. Largely subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. 40.-42. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. If "different nitrogen" means other than inorganic, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as unclear what "distinguishes the type and amount of nitrogen" and what "numerous conditions" means. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 47.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 52.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Rejected as conclusion of law and as not proven what is "typical." Accepted and subordinate to facts found. 61.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 63.-82. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 83.-102. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 103. Rejected as not clear from the evidence whether reclaimed water was being applied on those dates. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 104.-106. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 107.-110. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These violations were temporary aberrations in otherwise proper operation of the facility. They were corrected and do not bear significantly on the question whether the County has given reasonable assurances.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The manual was maintained at a different location.) Moon Lake Road 1.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. One was proposed in evidence presented at the hearing but not in the application. 15.-19. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25.-26. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. "Any" is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-32. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. First sentence, unclear; second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. 36.-38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. "Effluent" rejected to the extent that it infers something other than "reclaimed water." Rejected as to Deer Park WWTP; accepted as to the others. Accepted and incorporated. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 50.-52. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the rainfall/evapotranspiration differences are great enough to have a significant impact on site capacity. The Tampa Airport data was the best to use at the time of the application. Other, closer data became available later and were considered as part of the County's rebuttal case. 53. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the design of the model (constant head cells, boundaries, and single- layer) has a impact on site's hydraulic capacity. (It is understood that the significance of the design of the model is that it does not show flow into the ditches and adjacent wetlands or the relationship between surficial and Floridan aquifers.) 54.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. See 53., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 61.-63. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 64.-65. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 66. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. See 50.-52., above. Limiting storage needs to the .215 MGD design sprayfield capacity only, there is no real question as to the needed storage capacity. Neither differences in the rainfall/evapotranspiration data nor differences in the source of the reclaimed water would make storage capacity deficient. Ryals Road 1.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that it was "effectively withdrawn." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that a $400 fee was paid on July 12, 1991. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 15.-26. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 27. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 28.-33. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 34. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that the residential density is "high". Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales, P.A. P.O. Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Keith C. Hetrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Roland Tardif, is the owner of Pond View Mobile Home Park (hereinafter referred to as "Pond View"). Pond View is located in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, regulating wastewater treatment facilities. The Petitioner, Jeffrey Hill, is the owner of real property located adjacent to the northern boundary of Pond View. Mr. Hill has witnessed fluids flowing from Pond View onto his property. Those fluids, while not identified as to substance or source, came from the direction of a wastewater treatment facility on Pond View. It is possible, therefore, that a discharge from the wastewater treatment facility on Pond View could flow onto Mr. Hill's property. Mr. Hill is also the owner of sixty percent of the stock of a corporation which owns real property adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View. The corporation is not, however, a party to this proceeding. Pond View's Wastewater Treatment Facility. Pond View is served by a 0.009 MGD extended aeration (activated sludge) wastewater treatment plant (hereinafter referred to as the "Treatment Facility"). The Treatment Facility is located on the property at Pond View and is the subject of this proceeding. The Treatment Facility includes two percolation ponds where final treatment and disposal of chlorinated wastewater effluent takes place. The percolation ponds, if operating properly, should hold all effluent until it percolates into the groundwater. Viable operation of the Treatment Facility depends, in part, upon proper maintenance of the percolation ponds. The Treatment Facility was operated by Mr. Tardif pursuant to a permit issued by the Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Operation Permit"). The Operation Permit expired in 1991. Pursuant to the Operation Permit, Mr. Tardif was allowed to discharge effluent to an unnamed ditch and wetland area which connects with Alligator Lake. Alligator Lake is a Class III waterbody. Class III waterbodies are designated for use as recreational waters. Mr. Tardif's Application for Renewal of the Operation Permit. In November of 1991, Mr. Tardif applied to the Department for a renewal of the Operation Permit. Due to modifications in the Department's rules relating to wetlands made since the Operation Permit had been issued, the practice of discharging effluent into wetlands was no longer acceptable. Therefore, the Department denied Mr. Tardif's application for renewal of the Operation Permit. Mr. Tardif's Application for a Temporary Operation Permit. On September 3, 24 and 28, 1992, Department field inspections were conducted of the Treatment Facility. The field inspectors determined that there was excessive vegetation growing on the berms of the two percolation ponds of the Treatment Facility. Excessive vegetation makes it difficult to inspect the ponds to determine if improper discharges are taking place. The Department's field inspectors also determined that the distance between the effluent level in the percolation ponds and the top of the berms, which is referred to as "freeboard", was inadequate. Adequate freeboard is required to help insure that the ponds have sufficient volume capacity to contain facility effluent and rainwater without discharging effluent from the ponds. One effluent line adjacent to one of the ponds was observed discharging to a ditch. The discharge was considered a discharge to surface waters. Because of the condition of the percolation ponds, the Department was concerned about the operation and maintenance of the percolation ponds and their ability to perform properly. On or about October 8, 1992, the Department issued a Warning Letter to Mr. Tardif. The Warning Letter informed Mr. Tardif of the problems with the operation of the Treatment Facility found during the September of 1992 inspections. Mr. Tardif was also informed that the Treatment Facility was being operated without a valid permit in violation of Rule 17-4.030, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 19, 1992, Mr. Tardif applied to the Department for a temporary operation permit (hereinafter referred to as a "TOP"), to operate the Treatment Facility. On or about May 14, 1993, the Department issued a notice of intent to issue a TOP (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed TOP"). A copy of the Proposed TOP was attached to the notice of intent to issue. Specific condition 18 of the Proposed TOP provided as follows: This permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and investigate alternate land application methods if necessary. The submitted schedule for compliance is as follows: Date when planning is expected to be complete: January 1, 1994. Date when design will be complete: January 1, 1995. Date construction permit application will be submitted to upgrade or eliminate the existing discharge: July 1, 1995. Date construction will begin: October 1, 1995. Date construction is to be completed: May 1, 1996. Date that full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department will be achieved: May 1, 1997. Mr. Tardif did not challenge any part of the Department's decision to issue the Proposed TOP. On or about May 28, 1993, Mr. Hill filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's decision to issue the Proposed TOP. Mr. Hill alleged that the Proposed TOP would allow the Treatment Facility to discharge treated and untreated wastewater onto his property. Mr. Hill also alleged that Mr. Tardif had failed to demonstrate that the Treatment Facility would comply with all applicable statutes and rules governing its operation. The Department's Decision to Modify the Proposed TOP. Subsequent to the filing of this matter with the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Department caused the Treatment Facility to be inspected. Those inspections took place in August and September of 1993. The Department discovered that the berms of the percolation ponds were still covered with excessive vegetation and that the freeboard in the ponds was still inadequate. Additionally, the Department discovered during the August and September of 1993 inspections that the ponds were covered with duckweed. Duckweed, if not removed, will die and drop to the bottom of a percolation pond, reducing the ability of water to percolate into the soil. Duckweed also reduces the volume capacity of percolation ponds. The Department was already concerned about the adequacy of the soil conditions and the water table where the Treatment Facility is located. In a properly functioning percolation pond, water percolates quickly and the pond dries out. If the soil contains too much clay and/or the water table is high, percolation will occur at a slower rate. Percolation at the Treatment Facility was slow. The Department's concern about the inadequacy of the soil conditions and water table in the area where the Treatment Facility is located, coupled with the continued lack of maintenance of the percolation ponds, caused the Department to become more concerned with the potential for surface water discharges from the Treatment Facility. The Department's concern became greater as a result of reports of actual discharges from the Treatment Facility it received in September of 1993. On September 8, 1992, Sergeant Henry Grimes, a wildlife officer with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, inspected property adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View and the percolation ponds in response to a complaint about the Treatment Facility. Sergeant Grimes witnessed fluids being discharged from a pipe on Pond View property and an area saturated with a sludge-like substance that almost topped his boots when he stepped in it. The sludge-like substance was also located on property located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of Pond View. Mr. Tardif informed Sergeant Grimes that the discharge would be directed to a retention pond when the pond was completed. Discharges from the percolation ponds was a further indication that the percolation ponds are not operating properly. Such discharges may flow directly into wetlands through the ditch running from near Pond View to Alligator Lake. These discharges threaten the quality of the waters of Alligator Lake. Potentially harmful constituents in effluent which are of concern include bacteria, chlorine, phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonia. Effluents may also have a negative impact on biological oxygen demand. Based upon the foregoing events and concerns, the Department notified Mr. Tardif on or about October 8, 1993, that it intended to modify the Proposed TOP. The Department's Modification of the Proposed TOP. The Department decided to modify specific condition 18 of the Proposed TOP (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified TOP"). Specific condition 18 of the Modified TOP, with the modifications emphasized, provides as follows: There shall be no discharge from the ponds. This permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and provide land application methods if a discharge occurs. The Schedule for providing alternate land application methods is as follows: Immediately upon the effective date of this Permit, if a discharge occurs, the Permittee shall notify the Department orally within 24 hours, of the discharge and its cause. Oral notification shall be followed by a written report within 72 hours. The report shall describe the nature and cause of the discharge and the steps being taken or planned to be taken to temporarily correct the problem. Upon any discharge, a construction permit application will be submitted to upgrade or eliminate the existing discharge within 45 days of the discharge occurrence in accordance with the following schedule: The Permittee shall within 45 days of the pond discharge, have a qualified professional engineer, ("Engineer"), registered in the State of Florida, submit to the Department a completed domestic waste application for construction of an approved land application site, which includes Department form No. 17-610.910(1) to meet the current requirements of the Department. If the Department determines that the Permittee's application is incomplete, the Permittee shall have 15 days, or such longer period as provided and approved by the Department, from the date of receiving notice from the Department, to submit the required information to the Department to complete the application. Upon issuance of the Department permit, the Permittee shall comply with all permit conditions. If the Permittee fails to submit and/or complete the application within the time frame specified above in Specific Condition 18(a)(1) of this Permit, the Permittee shall cease all discharges to ground and/or surface water within 20 days of receiving such notice from the Department. The Permittee shall cease all discharges from the facility by either closing the facility and the appurtenant sewage collection lines or by daily removal of effluent from the treatment plant by a licensed hauler and having said effluent taken to a Department approved site until the facility is in compliance with the requirements of the Department Permitting Section and a Department operation permit has been issued for the facility. If the Permittee ceases discharge at any time, the Permittee shall orally notify the Department within 24 hours of the start of the cessation. Within 72 hours of oral notification, the Permittee shall submit to the Department a report describing and certifying compliance with this paragraph. Date construction will begin: within 4 months of issuance of construction permit. Date construction is to be completed: within 6 months of issuance of construction permit. Date that full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department will be achieved: within 18 months of the discharge occurrence. If any event occurs which causes delay, or the reasonable likelihood of delay, in achieving full compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules of the Department within 18 months of the discharge occurrence, the Permittee shall have the burden of proving that the delay was, or will be, caused by the circumstances beyond the permittee's reasonable control and could not have been or cannot be overcome by due diligence. Economic circumstances shall not be considered circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee, nor shall the failure of a contractor, subcontractor, materialman or other agency (collectively referred to as "contractor") to whom responsibility for performance is delegated to meet contractually imposed deadlines be a cause beyond the control of the Permittee, unless the cause of the contractor's late performance was also beyond the contractor's control. Upon occurrence of an event causing delay, or upon becoming aware of a potential for delay, the Permittee shall notify the Department orally within 24 hours and shall, within seven days of oral notification to the Department, notify the Department in writing of the anticipated length and cause of the delay, the measures taken, or to be taken, to prevent or minimize the delay, and the timetable by which the Permittee intends to implement these measures. If the parties can agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been, or will be, caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the agreed delay resulting from such circumstances. Such agreement shall adopt all reasonable measures necessary to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of the Permittee to comply with the notice requirements of this paragraph in a timely manner shall constitute a waiver of the Permittee's right to request an extension of time for compliance with the requirements of this Permit. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP did not clearly address the Department's concerns about the adequacy of the Treatment Facility. While the Proposed TOP specified that there will be "no discharge to the surface waters" and imposed upon Mr. Tardif the obligation to undertake remedial activities, the Proposed TOP was vague as to what exactly must occur before Mr. Tardif was required to undertake the remedial activities. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP also provides, in part, that "[t]his permit is issued to allow time for the facility to demonstrate full compliance with Department rules, demonstrate satisfactory evaporation/percolation pond performance and investigate alternative land application methods if necessary. . . ." [Emphasis added]. This requirement is vague and caused uncertainty as to whether Mr. Tardif was required to take any action before it was determined to be "necessary" and, if so, what events would cause such action to be considered "necessary." Special condition 18 of the Modified TOP identifies a specific event which will require Mr. Tardif to modify the Treatment Facility: any discharge from the percolation ponds. This requirement eliminates the uncertainty of the original special condition 18 and reduces the possibility of a dispute arising between the Department and Mr. Tardif as to whether remedial actions are required. Special condition 18 of the Proposed TOP also allowed Mr. Tardif until May 1996 to complete construction of alternative land application methods and until May 1997 to bring the percolation ponds into full compliance regardless of whether a discharge occurred today. Special condition 18 of the Modified TOP reduces the time period after a discharge when the percolation ponds must be brought into compliance to 18 months from the date of the discharge. The changes to special condition 18 reflect the Department's concern about the adequacy of the percolation ponds. These concerns have, in part, been caused by Mr. Tardif's lack of action to maintain the percolation ponds. Special Condition 18 of the Modified TOP is Reasonable. Mr. Tardif failed to prove that the percolation ponds can be operated without discharge. Mr. Tardif has failed to prove that the Modified TOP, with the changes to special condition 18, is not reasonable. In fact, the evidence proved that special condition 18, as modified, is reasonable and desirable to protect the quality of surface waters of the State. Mr. Tardif failed to prove that he is entitled to the issuance of the Modified TOP.
The Issue Whether a septic tank construction permit should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for use by the Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, owner of Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida. Whether the filling in of Lot number 6 and the construction of a septic tank will damage the residence of the Petitioner, Elinor Burger, on Lot number 5.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, and his wife own Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision, First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida in which the sixteen (16) lots are approximately 70 feet wide and 105 to 150 feet deep. The soil in the area is Mayakka Fine Sand, a poorly drained soil which has a water table normally at a depth of ten (10) to thirty (30) inches below ground surface, but which rises to the surface for a short time during wet periods. After respondent Rutkowski's initial application for a permit to install a septic tank on Lot number 6 had been denied, he employed an engineer and filed a plan for proposed site modification. The plan was received by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Rutkowski was notified on December 6, 1979, that the plan to remove the existing land fill, replace it with Astatula Fine Sand and raise the building pad appeared to be acceptable for the issuance of a septic tank construction permit, but that no further action on the application for the permit could be taken until after an administrative ruling on a protest by a neighboring property owner (Respondent' Exhibits 1, 4 and 5). The Pinellas County Engineering Department had approved the drainage for the area on October 9, 1979 (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The Petitioner, Elinor Burger, has lived on Lot number 5, which adjoins Lot number 6, since 1957. When there is a heavy rain of three (3) to four (4) inches, her septic tank fails to operate, and water stands in her back yard. She has seen and smelled polluted water standing in the street in front of her home. Water also stands on a second lot she owns adjoining her residence after a heavy rain preventing the mowing of the lot for long periods of time. Ms. Burger has unsuccessfully sought to connect to a sewer system by petitions for sewer connection on at least- three (3) occasions and has laid additional drainage lines to help solve her problem. In the spring, summer and fall of 1979, she had severe water problems. Ms. Burger believes the elevation of Lot number 6 would cause further water damage to her property, and that a septic tank on Lot number 6 would add more sewage problems to the area A witness for Petitioner, Alan Flandreau, who lives with his wife and three (3) children on lot number 13 adjoining Lot number 5 in the subdivision, has a septic tank that fills up in rainy weather and runs into the street, resulting in a stench and green slime. Flandreau has had his septic tank pumped out a number of times since 1968, when he bought his home. His lot is low, and water drains onto his property from other lots. A witness for Petitioner, Burl Crowe, owns Lot number 11 and lives on Lot number 12. Lot number 11 adjoins Lot number 6, and Lot number 12 borders on the property of Petitioner Burger. Crowe has lived on Lot number 12 for fourteen (14) years and on many occasions had water entering his garage and standing in his yard when it rains. He has seen Lot number 6 under water and water standing on the street in front of his house, A witness for the Respondents was Gerald Goulish, the professional engineer who prepared the site modification plan (Respondent's Exhibits 4 and 8). Goulish has studied the site together with Rule 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (infra) and believes the plan to fill the location of the septic tank site will cause the soil to percolate and evaporate and the proposed elevation of Lot number 6 two (2) feet will cause the water to drain toward the street and not onto adjoining property. He suggested that the adjoining and adjacent property owners cooperate and construct common swales to eliminate the surface water problems. A second witness for the Respondents was Burt Fraser, a sanitary supervisor for the Pinellas County Health Department, who denied the first application for installation of a septic tank on Lot number 6 but notified Respondent Rutkowski that the lot could be modified. Thereafter, he wrote Rutkowski that a modification plan had been received which meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Fraser stated that he will issue a permit for construction of a septic tank upon completion of the administrative hearing procedure unless directed not to issue such a permit. Fraser agreed that the conditions as described by Petitioner Burger and her witnesses are accurate, and that the subdivision has problems which will not be solved until sanitary sewers are installed, but he believes that he has no alternative except to issue a permit if an applicant meets the requirements of Rule 10D-6.25 Florida Administrative Code. He knows of no requirement to make a study of adjacent and adjoining properties, and Respondent Department has not made a study. There are seven (7) houses in the sixteen (16) lot subdivision. The area is low and subject to flooding because of soil texture. There is an undisputed drainage problem in the area which causes a septic tank problem to the residents. The addition of more houses and septic tanks will increase the already serious drainage conditions which are public health nuisances. The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent Rutkowski's application for a permit for the construction of a septic tank on Lot number 6 be denied without prejudice to the Respondent to reapply if there should be a change in circumstances. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 William W. Gilkey, Esquire Richards Building 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. Alex Rutkowski 30 North Evergreen Clearwater, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent Felo McAllister and his wife Dorothy own a home and dock on Texar Bayou off Escambia Bay in Pensacola, Florida. A storm sewer with a diameter of 15 to 18 inches empties into the Bayou near the dock. The silt- laden outflow from the storm sewer has resulted in a sand bar or berm two or three feet wide paralleling the shoreline from the McAllisters' property line to the dock. This sand bar separates a ditch caused by the outflow from Texar Bayou. Over the years, silt has accumulated underneath the dock. The McAllisters originally applied for a permit to dredge boat slips at the dock. Andrew Feinstein, an environmental specialist II in respondent Department's employ, evaluated the original application and recommended denial, because he felt extending the dock was preferable to dredging. The McAllisters then modified their application so as to seek a permit for dredging at the mouth of the storm sewer in order that the silt already deposited there would not wash underneath the dock. Mr. Feinstein and Michael Clark Applegate, an environmental specialist III and dredge and field supervisor employed by the Department, testified without contradiction that the Department has reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate any applicable rules. The permit DER proposes to issue contemplates that the berm will not be breached. The bottom on which the dredging is proposed to take place belongs to the City of Pensacola. Although under water, it is a part of a dedicated roadway. The City itself does maintenance dredging to ensure the efficiency of storm sewers, but is glad for assistance from private citizens in this regard. J. Felix, City Engineer for Pensacola, is authorized allow dredging on this road right of way, and has done so. See also respondent's exhibit No. 2. The site proposed for placement of the spoil is a low area affected by flooding. Fill there would affect drainage onto neighbors' property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER issue respondent McAllister the permit it proposed to issue in its letter of September 14, 1979, upon condition that the spoil be placed at least 100 feet from the water's edge. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Jay Sauls and Ms. Harriett Tinsley Sauls 14 West Jordan Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Felo McAllister 2706 Blackshear Pensacola, Florida 32503
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the petition for a variance, the recommendation of the Department of Environmental Regulation and the prehearing stipulation of the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Tampa Electric Company is the owner and operator of the Big Bend Generating Station which presently consists of three coal fired steam electric generating units (Units 1, 2 and 3) in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Big Bend Generating Station is located on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, a Class III body of water. Discharges from the Big Bend Station are subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The discharge that is the subject of this proceeding is from the slag pond currently serving Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3. Tampa Electric Company originally requested variances from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.051 (minimum criteria), 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), 17-3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17- 3.061(2)(h) (lead), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(17) (lead), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121 (19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium) of the Florida Administrative Code for the discharge from this existing slag pond. At the hearing, Tampa Electric Company withdrew its request for variances from the provisions of Rules 17-3.051 (minimum criteria), 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), and 17-3.061(2)(h) and 17- 3.121(17) (lead). Data collected by Tampa Electric Company during the period of 1970 through 1974, 1980 and 1981 demonstrate that the quality of the ambient intake water in Hillsborough Bay contains concentration of arsenic, chromium, cadmium, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, and selenium in amounts which periodically exceed the applicable Florida water quality standards for that water body as contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Water quality data for the Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3 slag pond discharge collected during the 1980-81 study demonstrate that there will be either minimal or no net increase, or a reduction between the ambient intake and discharge for all metals except iron and selenium. Upon mixing with the flow in the discharge canal, water quality impacts due to these parameters are expected to be minimal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended granting a variance for the parameters cadmium, mercury and nickel based upon the following: mercury concentration decrease upon passing through the slag pond; cadmium and nickel concentrations remain the same passing through the slag pond; and, therefore, the slag pond system does not appear to contribute to the existing water quality violations for cadmium, mercury, or nickel. The Department of Environmental Regulation's analysis of the other parameters indicates that the concentrations of arsenic, chromium, iron and selenium increase in passing through the slag pond system. This increase appears to be due to an increase in suspended metals. Additional treatment of the discharge from the slag pond would be necessary to meet water quality criteria in the effluent for the parameters arsenic, chromium, iron and selenium. Compliance would require further removal of these parameters possibly by the use of a reverse osmosis treatment system. The cost of treating the slag pond discharge pond stream to comply with water quality standards by use of reverse osmosis would be approximately $28.2 million. The $28.2 million expenditure is not justified or practicable in this case. The Department of Environmental Regulation agrees that this expenditure is not justified in this case and has recommended a variance for these parameters as well. The damage or harm resulting or which may result to Tampa Electric Company from compliance with the rules from which the variance relief is sought would be the expenditure of $28.2 million for an additional treatment system with no significant resulting benefit to the environment. The failure of the Department of Environmental Regulation to grant the requested variance could result in Tampa Electric Company being unable to operate this facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation recommends a two-year variance from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17- 3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17- 3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium) of the Florida Administrative Code for the discharge from the slag pond serving existing Big Bend Station Units 1, 2 and 3. The recommendation is conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to monitor the metal content of the slag pond discharge, to evaluate alternative treatment systems and to submit a report describing treatment systems evaluated, including costs and feasibility, within eighteen (18) months of the effective date of the variance relief. Tampa Electric Company has agreed to the recommendation and conditions of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Appropriate public notice of this proceeding has been given. At the conclusion of the hearing, the public was given an opportunity to comment and present evidence on the petition for variance. No public testimony was offered.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Tampa Electric Company be granted a two-year variance from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.121(11) (copper), 17- 3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel) and 17-3.121(26) (selenium), Florida Administrative Code, for discharges from the slag pond for existing Big Bend Station Units 1, 2 and 3. The granting of this variance should be conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to monitor the metal content of the slag pond discharge during the duration of the variance, evaluate alternative suspended metals removal treatment systems, and submit a report to the Department of Environmental Regulation describing the treatment systems evaluated and the costs and feasibility of those systems within eighteen (18) months of the effective date of the variance. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802 Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Administrator, Power Plant Siting Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in these cases is whether the Southwest Florida Management District should issue to Charles Bass Water Use Permit 207025.04, which would authorize groundwater withdrawals from three wells for crop irrigation on a farm located in Hardee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District, was the state agency responsible for the management of water resources within the geographical area of 16 Florida counties which includes Hardee County, in which both properties in issue are located. The District’s authority to issue consumptive use permits for groundwater is found in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Quail Creek Farms, Inc., is a family-owned Florida corporation which incorporates approximately 2,350 acres in Hardee County, Florida. The property is used as a hunting preserve and for cattle and citrus farming. Quail Creek Farms, Inc., is located contiguous to and directly south of Respondent Bass’ property, consisting of approximately 1,380 acres, also in Hardee County. The Bass property is actually owned by Golden County Farms, Inc., in which Bass is a principal, and which directly and through tenant farming operates a vegetable farming operation thereon. Historically, Bass has grown agricultural crops, including tomatoes, on the property at least since the 1940s. Though approximately 745 acres of the property were available for crop cultivation prior to 1984, and remain available for production, it appears that prior to 1991, not all available land was in use at any one time. Farmed in a checkerboard approach, normally between 150 and 200 acres were under cultivation at any one time, with a maximum acreage in production of 240 acres. However, since 1991, annual acreage in production has increased to a present level in excess of 700 acres. Over the years, an amicable and friendly relationship between the Bass and Ward (Quail Creek) families has developed. Both properties are located in a rural area which also supports numerous similar farming operations within 10 to 20 miles of the properties. Use of the Bass property for crop farming, including tomatoes, is reasonable and consistent with land use practices in the area. Over the years, Bass has used, and continues to use, a semi-closed, seepage irrigation system to irrigate the row crops grown on the property. A semi-closed, seepage irrigation system is one which manages the water table beneath the crop root zone through a series of furrows down which water is provided periodically and as necessary to ensure the crop has sufficient moisture for its growing needs. The water is pumped by well from below ground and is thereafter channeled by pipe to the farm field for use. The water is released by spigot or valve into furrows between the raised crop rows from which it seeps into the ground to raise the water table to just below the root zone of the growing plants. The plants obtain the water from this level by capillary action. Only sufficient water to raise the water table to the proper level is released into the furrows, and to ensure against run-off, the field is surrounded by collector swales and perimeter ditches to catch and retain any excess water which might reach the farthest end of the row without seeping into the ground. A semi-closed, seepage irrigation system, as is in existence on the Bass property, should result in only a minimal run-off if the system is properly maintained and operated. Irrigation systems are not designed to be the primary source of water for crops, but are designed to provide sufficient supplemental water, above and beyond natural rainfall, to satisfy the crop water need in a two-in-ten rainfall system (the driest two years out of ten). The greater the rainfall, the less irrigation water is needed, and it is the responsibility of the farmer to turn on and shut off the water to the furrows so as to provide only the water needed by the crop. It is not to the farmer’s advantage to provide more water than is needed, for several reasons. The pumping of water is expensive due to the high cost of a power source for the pump. Also, too much water raises the water table to a level where the roots of the plant are either too shallow to support the plant in times of less rainfall, or the roots drown in the overabundance of water. The use of pumped groundwater for crop irrigation is reasonable and consistent with farming practices in the local area. Semi-closed, seepage irrigation of row crops is a common practice among row crop farmers in the area of the Bass property. The system utilized by Bass is typical of this type of system and its use is consistent with irrigation practices in the area. Mr. Bass pumps his water from three wells on the property. The permit applies to the total amount of water taken by the three existing wells. One well is an 8-inch diameter well constructed to a depth of 800 feet and cased to a depth of 400 feet. The second well is a 12-inch diameter well which is drilled to a depth of 985 feet and cased to a depth of 195 feet. The third well is a 16-inch diameter well which is drilled to a total depth of 1,500 feet and cased down to 400 feet. Whereas wells one and three draw only from the Floridan Aquifer, well two draws from both the Floridan (lower) and intermediate aquifer. Bass has had a water consumptive use permit issued by the District since 1983 based on which he has pumped water for crop irrigation. The original permit, 207025.00, issued in April 1983, authorized withdrawal from one well at an annual average rate of 253,000 gallons per day (GPD) and a maximum daily rate of 760,000 GPD. When the permit was renewed in February 1991 (207025.01), withdrawal was authorized from four wells for a combined annual average rate of 1,280,000 GPD and a combined peak monthly rate of 6,000,000 GPD. The permit was modified by letter (207025.02) to change the location of one well without changing any of the permitted quantities. In August 1994, the current permit (207250.03) authorized withdrawal from only three wells with a combined annual average of 2,950,000 GPD and a combined peak monthly rate of 7,740,000 GPD. The current permit authorizes withdrawal of water for 745 acres for each of a spring and fall tomato crop, utilizing the semi-closed seepage irrigation system for both. In 1991, Bass significantly increased the number of acres under cultivation. A District visit to the property in December 1991, revealed grading and construction activities under way. Acreage under cultivation had increased to approximately 700 acres in tomatoes planted in raised rows under plastic. Disking and ditching had taken place in and around 4.56 acres of wetlands, and a new surface water management system had been constructed on approximately 25 acres of previously uncultivated land. Water was observed being discharged from the ditches on the Bass property onto Quail Creek land, which resulted in a flooding of portions of Quail Creek, the clogging of canals, and the death of several wooded areas presumably due to excess water. In February 1992, the District issued a Compliance Notice to Bass advising him that the land readjustment activities under way constituted construction of an unpermitted surface water management system and was a violation of statute and departmental rule. On March 23, 1992, Bass questioned the District’s determination that a permit was required, but three days later, on March 26, 1992, the District issued a Notice of Violation. Adverse impacts continued to occur to Quail Creek property, allegedly due to Bass’s activities. Finally, in September 1992, Bass applied for a general construction permit from the District for a surface water management system. As a part of this system for which a permit was sought, Bass’s engineers addressed the historical farming pattern on the property and attempted to resolve several problems by incorporating into the design certain features which were supposed to slow down the runoff from the Bass farm fields. On June 29, 1993, the District and Bass entered into a Consent Order which found that 745 acres of farm fields and related surface water facilities had existed prior to October 1, 1984, and, therefore, did not require a surface water management permit for their continued use. Quail Creek was not a party to this Consent Order. In addition, however, the District found that 25 acres of farm fields and related facilities had been created after October 1, 1984, and those acres required a surface water management permit for their continued use. Bass applied for and obtained the required permit (40105.05.00) from the District on April 23, 1993. Bass was also required to pay a monetary penalty to the District. On May 24, 1994, the District transferred the surface water management permit to a permanent operation status. Bass’s WUP permit 207025.03 was due to expire on February 14, 1997, and he filed an application (207250.04) to renew it on February 13, 1997. In his application, Bass requested authority to withdraw water from his existing three wells at a combined annual average rate of 4,783,500 GPD and a combined peak monthly rate of 8,030,300 GPD for the existing semi-closed seepage irrigation of two 745-acre tomato crops, one each in the spring and the fall. The 745 acres to be used for these two crops have been determined to either not require a surface water management permit under the Consent Order or be covered under the existing surface water management permit 40105.05.00. After Bass’s application for renewal was received by the District in February 1997, as a part of the processing it was referred to a professional geologist, Mr. Balser, who, in March 1997, requested additional information. Balser’s request included a reference to a "required" Environmental Resource Permit Agricultural Rule Exemption. The use of the term "required" in reference to that element was in error as it is not required but only recommended. Nonetheless, Bass applied for the exemption on September 15, 1997. Action on the renewal application had been delayed until after the application for the exemption was filed, and the District granted the exemption on October 16, 1998. Processing of the renewal application then continued until Bass withdrew his request for the exemption on February 23, 1999. In the course of evaluation of Bass’s renewal application, the District utilized its Agricultural Water Use Calculation Model to review the reasonableness of the requested quantities, and a groundwater flow model identified as "MODFLOW" to evaluate the impacts of the proposed withdrawals under the permit. Use of this model indicated that the quantities of water requested by Bass were reasonable and needed for his proposed agricultural operation. However, there also was some possibility shown that the withdrawals might adversely impact some off-site wells. As a result, Mr. Balser suggested to Bass that the quantities of water sought under the permit be reduced. Consistent with that request, on December 9, 1997, Bass amended his renewal application so as to reduce the acreage allotment for both the spring and fall crops from 745 acres to 600 acres each planting. This resulted in a reduction in the annual average withdrawal rate by 1,053,800 GPD, and in the peak monthly rate by 1,563,000 GPD. With the receipt of this amendment in quantities requested, the District declared the application complete. Utilizing the models described, Mr. Balser determined that the amount of supplemental water requested by Bass was reasonable and consistent with the District’s permitting criteria. These findings were approved by the reviewing authority. On January 2, 1998, the District indicated its intention to issue a ten-year renewal permit to Bass authorizing withdrawals at a combined annual average rate of 3,729,700 GPD, and a combined peak monthly rate of 6,467,300 GPD for irrigation of both a spring and fall tomato crop of 600 acres each on the Bass property. Incorporated in the permit were the standard permit conditions provided for by Rule 40D-2.381(3), Florida Administrative Code, and seven special conditions tailored specifically for this permit. This proposed agency action was modified by the District on March 9, 1999, when it moved back the deadline for the Tailwater Feasibility Report called for in Special Condition 6 from May 1, 1998 to December 1, 1999, and added two other special conditions. With the exception of those modifications, the January 2, 1998, proposed agency action has not been changed. The changes in the withdrawal gallons stipulated in the permit include an increase of 779,700 GPD in the annual average rate currently permitted, but a decrease of 1,272,700 GPD in the peak monthly rate. The notice of proposed agency action was sent by certified mail to Petitioner on January 2, 1998, and received on January 5, 1998. Quail Creek filed its petition for administrative hearing with the District on January 21, 1998, sixteen days after receipt of the notice of proposed agency action. There is little doubt that Petitioner has suffered an increase in surface water problems on its property since late 1991, when Bass first increased the number of acres he had in row crop production. Petitioner claims that by that time approximately 700 acres of tomatoes were planted under plastic, and that disking and ditching had occurred around and in a 4.56- acre wetlands parcel on the Bass property. Petitioner’s investigation indicated that a new surface water management system had been constructed on 25 acres of previously unfarmed land and that water was being discharged from the Bass ditches on to Quail Creek Farms which resulted in an alteration of the area hydrology. In January 1992, Quail Creek’s president, Mr. Ward, observed extensive amounts of water flowing into Quail Creek’s canal systems as a result of super saturation of the Bass cropland. Mr. Ward is convinced this was due to increased water from irrigation which was applied to land already saturated by unusually heavy rains experienced in the area at that time. In early February 1992, following a 1.2-inch rainfall, Mr. Ward, accompanied by his foreman, Mr. Drake, toured the Quail Creek property abutting the Bass farm and noticed that the water in the Quail Roost canal system rose by two to three feet after the rain. Mr. Ward is convinced the rise in water level is a direct result of irrigation being applied to land already saturated by the rain. In March 1992, District officials viewed the property in issue and determined that surface water management construction was being undertaken by Bass, and as a result of subsequent negotiations, the technicalities regarding the permitting of this system were worked out to the satisfaction of the District. The outflow of surface water from the Bass farm onto Quail Creek did not abate however. In April 1992, measures were undertaken which were designed to curb the continued flooding by adding additional dirt to the Quail Creek dike. This did not correct the problem, however. In June 1993, photographs of the area in question revealed that large amounts of soil had been washed off the Bass property into the Quail Creek ditch near the lone 60-inch culvert at the junction with the north canal. Quail Creek also increased the size of its culverts in an effort to provide some relief from the flooding. By the end of summer in 1995, Quail Creek management again found it necessary to add more dirt to the top of its dikes in an effort to stem the water flow from the Bass property, and to dredge again the canal in an effort to stem the flow of water coming from the Bass property. As late as February 1997, it continued to dig from its canals dirt which it contends had been placed there by the flood waters coming from Bass’s property. It also added a 66-inch culvert to that already installed in an effort to control the water flow. During the period in issue, several noticeable factors have taken place on the Quail Creek property just south of its property line with Bass which may be attributed to excessive water influx. Included among these are the death of oak trees, the death of grass areas and areas of other vegetation, and the clogging of Quail Creek’s drainage system. Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, is the rule applied by the District in its determination of permit entitlement. This rule requires an applicant for a permit to demonstrate that the proposed water use is beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant can demonstrate these requirements by providing the reasonable assurances outlined in subsections (a) through (n) of the cited rule section. To be sure, while the major emphasis of water use permitting relates to the effect of the withdrawal on quality and availability of water remaining for the use and enjoyment of others, consideration is also given in the Basis of Review (BOR) to the impacts of withdrawals and discharges on the surface water management system design in terms of percolation rates, storage volumes, design changes, and the like. The standards and criteria listed in the BOR are to be used to provide the reasonable assurances required by the rule. The "reasonable demand" criterion requires a showing that agricultural irrigation is necessary in an amount certain. This information is normally provided using the AGMOD, a computer program based on the Blaney-Criddle methodology, which is used to determine supplemental irrigation requirements for a particular crop, using specific soil type, rainfall, and other variables for a 2 in 10 year drought event. The quantity of supplemental irrigation needed, as estimated by AGMOD, is generally the minimum amount of water needed under drought conditions for optimal crop production, and it does not include any allowance for waste or runoff. This model, AGMOD, has been proven reliable in the field, and provides to the District a consistent approach for use in evaluating WUP requests. In the instant case, the evidence indicates the AGMOD simulation utilized was properly set up and run. Under the circumstances of this case, it is found that Bass has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his proposed water request will satisfy a reasonable demand, and the use of the water for crop cultivation is a reasonable use for the water. By the same token, the use and proposed method of irrigation are reasonable for the area, and the quantities estimated by AGMOD reflect the supplemental irrigation requirements of the specific crop Bass proposes to cultivate on the acreage allowed. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s contention that Bass has not shown a need for additional water and should be limited to that amount of water at the rate in his current permit, no convincing evidence to support this contention was introduced. To the contrary, it would appear that if Bass were limited to irrigation at the current rate of withdrawal, and should a 2-in-10-year drought occur, he would be able to irrigate only approximately 475 of his 600 acres. Assuming proper operation and maintenance of the system, the water from irrigation should not contribute to flooding of Quail Creek property. An applicant is also required to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact water resources, including both ground and surface waters. This criteria addressed changes caused by withdrawal of water from the ground or a surface body of water and do not envision changes resulting from the subsequent use of the water, such as runoff. In other words, the question is whether Bass’s use of the water will result in a diminishment of Petitioner’s water assets. To determine this, water managers utilize MODFLOW, a groundwater flow computer model which identifies draw-down impacts caused by the proposed peak monthly withdrawal rate during a 90-day period with no effective rainfall. This computer model, developed by the United States Geological Survey, is widely accepted as a predictive tool by experts in the hydrology and hydrogeology communities, including the District. Petitioner has asserted that runoff of irrigation water from the Bass property, caused by unnecessary irrigation of property heavily covered by impenetrable plastic mulch, which is already saturated by rainfall, will cause the adverse changes to both the quality and quantity of water available to it which the rule envisions. This is, however, an interpretation of the rule which is contrary to the District’s historic interpretation and is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. In any case, Petitioner has failed to present evidence to establish that the standing and run-off water shown in the photographs placed in evidence, and which allegedly had an adverse impact on surface water management on Quail Creek Farms, was the result of irrigation rather than the excessive rainfall experienced in the area at the time. To the contrary, the testimony of Mark Roberts, the former ranch hand, raised a serious question regarding the source of the runoff. Mr. Roberts recalls that in 1992 and 1993, when the alleged flooding of Petitioner’s property took place, the source of the flood waters was Petitioner’s property rather than that of Bass. The evidence of record indicates that the water use proposed for use under the permit application will not cause changes in either the quality or quantity of the water resources available. Results of the MODFLOW analysis done by the District in this case indicates that the draw-down of the water table at the parameters explored will be less than one foot, and an impact of this minimal magnitude is too small to cause an adverse change in either the quantity or quality of the water resource within the measurement parameters. Another factor for consideration in the evaluation of a permit application is the requirement that the applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources. It must be noted here that the impacts referenced in the rule in this regard are impacts resulting from the withdrawal, and not such other factors as runoff. In the evaluation of withdrawal results, MODFLOW is the tool most often used. Again, use of MODFLOW indicates that the anticipated draw-down occasioned by the anticipated withdrawals will be less than one foot. This impact is considered minimal and not likely to cause any adverse impact to the protected areas cited. Still another factor for consideration in permit application evaluation is the requirement that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause water levels or rates-of-flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. The District has not adopted water levels or rates-of-flow for those water bodies envisioned by this rule other than to establish minimum levels for some lakes within its jurisdiction. However, none of these lakes are on or near the Bass property, and this requirement is not applicable to the instant application. An applicant must also provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will utilize the lowest water quality useable by the applicant for the intended purpose, or a lower quality water if available and useable for a portion of the intended use. Included within the "lower quality water" category is such water as recovered agricultural tailwater and collected storm water. In the instant case, the evidence shows that Bass will use the lowest quality water that is available and economically feasible for use. The majority of Bass’s water comes from the Floridan Aquifer which is of poorer quality than the intermediate aquifer under the Bass property. As to other potential sources, the evidence indicates that if the MODFLOW allotments are followed, there should be no tailwater available for use, and the use of collected storm water is neither feasible nor consistent with local agricultural practices. One of the requirements for issuance of a permit is a showing of reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not significantly induce saltwater intrusion. It is the opinion of District evaluators, and the evidence of records shows, that the property in issue is too far from a saltwater source for there to be any meaningful risk of lateral saltwater intrusion as a result of the proposed withdrawals. Further, the MODFLOW analysis suggests that the impact of groundwater withdrawal as a result of the permitted activity would be too light to cause any upcoming of saline water from a lower aquifer. Another permit requirement relates to the applicant providing reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause pollution of the aquifer. Information available to the District indicates there are no known contaminants in the aquifer system in the vicinity of the Bass property, and because of the rural nature of the property the existence of such plumes is unlikely. However, even were one or more to exist, MODFLOW indicates the withdrawals proposed under the permit applied for would be minimal and unlikely to cause or permit any contamination. The applicant is also required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed water use will not adversely impact off-site land uses existing at the time of the application. Quail Creek has indicated that its property is used for cattle and citrus cultivation, and the photographic evidence presented by it would clearly indicate that the specific land receiving the off-site flow is used primarily for cattle grazing. Evidence of cattle deaths, as presented, failed to indicate that the deaths were the result of water flow over the land. In any case, the thrust of the rule deals with the result of withdrawal, not the subsequent consumptive use of the runoff onto the property. In this case, there is no evidence that the proposed water consumption by Bass which exceeds his present consumption rate will have any connection to Petitioner’s use of its land off the pumping site. The District rules also require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal. MODFLOW analysis clearly indicates that proposed water consumption by Bass will not adversely impact any existing withdrawals. The modeling done reveals that the proposed withdrawals will result in a draw-down in the water table outside the Bass property by less than a foot. The draw-down in the aquifer outside the Bass property will not exceed 5 feet except in the case of one area 4,900 feet to the north of the Bass property. Quail Creek Farms, which lies to the south of the Bass property should not be effected. These draw- downs are well within the parameters set forth in BOR 4.8, which holds that draw-downs in the water table of less than 2 feet, and draw-downs in the aquifer of less than five feet are presumed not to cause adverse impacts to existing legal withdrawals. However, to ensure against any off-site impact as a result of approval of the instant permit, the District has included Special Condition 2 in the proposed permit which requires Mr. Bass to investigate and mitigate impacts to existing wells located within 4,900 feet of these production wells. The District has not applied that provision of the Rule 40D-2.301(1)(j) to the instant application evaluation. It contends that the provision of BOR 4.9 which interprets that rule to require the utilization of local water resources to the maximum extent possible before considering more remote alternate sources does not apply to applications for the withdrawal of water to be used on the same property from which withdrawn. Quail Creek disagrees with the District position, and suggests that before Bass should be given permission to pump more water from the ground, he should make use of collected storm water. This suggestion is not consistent with the District’s long-term interpretation of the rule. The rule under consideration here also requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurances that his proposed use will incorporate water conservation measures. In the instant case, the evidence shows that Bass uses pipes rather than open ditches to convey the water from the well-head to the irrigation ditches. This minimizes evaporation. He also operates an on- going leak detection and maintenance program for the system. He conducts a continuing analysis of the system’s efficiency. He avoids daytime irrigation and other practices so as to minimize evaporation. He has considered and continues to consider the feasibility of converting his system to a more efficient one. He has developed an irrigation schedule designed to maximize efficiency of delivery; and he has endeavored to reduce or eliminate runoff of water both to conserve water and to protect streams. However, to ensure maximum compliance with the spirit and letter of the rule, the District has attached Special Conditions 5 and 6 to the permit. Special Condition 5 requires Bass to continue implementing best management practices, and Special Condition 6 requires him to look into the feasibility of implementing a tailwater recovery system. If the run-off to Petitioner’s property is the result of irrigation and not rainfall, and this has not been effectively shown, implementation of a tailwater recovery system should substantially reduce, if not eliminate, it. Quail Creek contends these conditions will not effectively address the problem because, it alleges, Bass has been less than forthcoming in the representations made in his application. This allegation is not effectively supported by the evidence, however. Only Mr. Piercefield, testifying for Petitioner, indicated that on his few visits to the Bass property he had not observed any best management practices implemented, nor had he seen any evidence of them in the District’s file. The witnesses' testimony is not persuasive either in content or in presentation. Another requirement of the rule in question is for the applicant to provide to the District reasonable assurances that it will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable. BOR 4.11 has defined "reclaimed water" as treated wastewater effluent. The District has properly concluded that wastewater effluent is not currently available for use by Bass on his property and is not likely to be available in the foreseeable future. Petitioner contends, however, that the rule applies to water resources other than treated effluent, such as storm water. This interpretation is contrary to the District’s long-standing interpretation and practice, and Petitioner has not supported it with any creditable evidence of record. Accepting, arguendo, the correctness of Petitioner’s interpretation, however, there is no indication that it would be technically and/or economically feasible to utilize storm water for irrigation on the Bass property. A requirement of the review process is that the applicant provide the District with reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause a waste of water. Waste is defined in BOR 4.12 as causing excess water to run into a surface water system. That is exactly what Petitioner claims is happening here. However, Petitioner has not presented credible evidence to demonstrate that it is irrigation water which is running onto its property. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that the Bass water allocation is based on a properly developed and run AGMOD simulation which estimates the minimum amount of supplemental irrigation water needed. It does not provide enough water for waste or runoff. If Bass properly operates and maintains his semi-closed irrigation system, and it is to his economic advantage to do so, its use would result in only minimal runoff. In addition, the implementation of Special Condition 6, calling for a tailwater recovery system, would further preclude the run-off of any excess irrigation water and recycle it for further irrigation. In the event all this fails, or in the event of unusual and unexpected excessive rain should occur, Special Condition 7 in the permit provides recourse to Petitioner. A final requirement of the permitting rule is the need for the applicant to provide the District with reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not be otherwise harmful to the water resources of the District. Petitioner contends that Bass has not shown compliance with BOR 2.2, which holds that a permit application is not complete until the surface water management permit application required by the District is deemed complete and the impact of withdrawals on the applicant’s existing permitted surface water management system is evaluated. This requirement is not included in the permitting rule of the District, 40D-2.301(1), and the District has historically not required a showing of compliance. The District has taken the position here, however, that Bass has complied with the provision. In this case, a surface water management permit application was not required because the area of the Bass property to be used for the growing of crops was exempted from surface water management permitting by the District in 1993. In addition, the withdrawal impact was evaluated for Bass’s existing 25 acre permitted surface water management system as a part of the MODFLOW analysis, and this analysis showed that the projected withdrawal of groundwater would lower the water table by much less than one foot. The District considers this to be a minor impact and it is so found. Taken as a whole, the evidence of record indicates that Bass operates an efficient and well-maintained irrigation system which, used properly, is not likely to cause the run-off attributed to it by Petitioner. Support for this determination is seen in the fact that at the time of the worst flooding, rainfall in the area was at significant highs. This is supported by the testimony of Mr. Garrett, the hydrologist. In addition, the evidence also shows that at those times of flood, the Bass wells either were not operating at all or were operating at less than permitted production. Further, it would be economically inappropriate for Bass to flood his fields with more than necessary water because of the cost of pumping, and the resultant damage to crops.
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 water use permit 207025.04 to Charles Bass as proposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy A. Hunt, Esquire Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire David M. Caldevilla, Esquire Charles R. Fletcher, Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3400 Tampa, Florida 33602 Margaret Lytle, Esquire Tony Muntchler, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston, General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Respondents Falkner to transfer and modify a Water Use Permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is responsible for regulation and protection of water resources in the geographic area involved in this proceeding. Since 1994, John Falkner has owned the property in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this proceeding. The Falkner property is farmed by Christopher Falkner, the owner's brother. Prior to purchasing the land, the Falkners farmed the property, also known as the Rogers farm, through a lease arrangement with the previous owner. Rose Ann DeVito owns property to the south of the Falkner property. In the time since Ms. DeVito purchased the property, the elevation of Sumner Road has been raised and culverts were replaced. A fish farm was constructed in close proximity to her property. The result of this and other development has been to direct all the water flow from the surrounding area into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. Drainage patterns in the area of Ms. DeVito's property have been altered since she first occupied the property. A ditch along Sumner Road which used to handle runoff from her property has been blocked by a neighbor's driveway. Maintenance on the ditch, allegedly a county responsibility, is described as poor. The ditch at the rear of Ms. DeVito's property handled water flow to Bullfrog Creek until the water flow became blocked, and the water diverted onto her property. The effect is that Ms. DeVito's property often contains a large amount of water. A substantial amount of sand is visible on her property, allegedly deposited by water flow. According to Ms. DeVito, both the county and the District have blamed the Falkner farm for the water-deposited sand. Charles and Diana Booth own property adjacent and to the south of the Falkner property. From 1992 to 1994, the Booths suffered from water running off the Falkner/Rogers farm and flooding the Booth property. A flood of the Booth property in the Fall of 1994 was not caused by irrigation but was related to a ten inch rainfall event at the Falkner farm. A ten inch rainfall exceeds a 25 year storm event and would likely result in widespread flooding. The Booths' pasture, top soil and driveway were eroded by the flooding. During the two years of flooding, Mr. Booth complained on several occasions about the flooding to the Falkners' foreman, "Cleo." The complaints were not relayed to Mr. Falkner. In October 1994, Mr. Booth reported the problem to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Soon after the complaint was made, a representative of the District inspected the property and determined that a ditch needed maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the ditch was cleaned and a berm was installed to redirect runoff away from the Booth property. There has been no further flooding of the Booth property. In October 1995, Mr. Booth became concerned that a ditch was filling with sand and would not continue to handle the runoff. After voicing his concern, a water diverter was installed in the ditch and appears to have remedied the situation. At the time the Falkners began to lease the Rogers property, an existing water use permit, numbered 206938.01, had been issued and was valid for the farm. The Falkners have applied to transfer the existing water use permit from the previous property owner. The Falkners also seek to modify the permit, increasing the total quantities which can be pumped by transferring previously approved quantities from another permit the Falkners currently hold. All of the relevant wells are within the District's Most Impacted Area (MIA) of the Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area. The District allows a permit holder within the MIA to increase withdrawals from a well by transferring the quantities from another permitted well within the MIA. The other Falkner farm (the "301 farm") from which the quantities would be transferred is located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Rogers farm and is within the MIA. The District reviewed the application and, on September 29, 1995, issued its Proposed Agency Action to Issue Water Use Permit No. 206938.03. The proposed permit includes special conditions requiring monthly pumping reports, water quality reports, adherence to District irrigation allotments (irrigation levels established by the AGMOD computer model) and crop reporting. In reviewing the application the District utilized the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review, incorporated into the code by reference. In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. Additionally, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use: will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters; will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application; will not cause water to go to waste; and will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the water use is reasonable, beneficial and is in the public interest. The Falkners irrigate farmland to produce agricultural products. The production of food is in the public interest. The proposed use is reasonable and beneficial. Further, uncontradicted evidence and opinions of expert witnesses establish that the proposed use will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. The evidence establishes that pumping from the Falkner wells will not adversely affect the quality of water within the aquifers from which the water is drawn. Mr. Booth asserted that he is having water quality problems, specifically with rust in his well. The Booth well is approximately 25 years old. There is no evidence that the rust is related to the Falkner pumping. The DeVito and Booth wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer. Review of the potentiometric surface map of the intermediate aquifer indicates that there is a water level variation of 17 feet between the rainy and dry seasons. The result of the variance can be "dry" wells. There are two wells on the Falkner/Rogers property relevant to this proceeding. The first (District ID number 1) is 770 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 160 feet, and opens to the Floridan aquifer. The second (District ID number 2) is 1100 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 140 feet, and opens to the Intermediate and the Floridan aquifers. A cased well does not withdraw water from the formations through which the casing is placed. For example, a well cased to a depth of 160 feet draws no water from the top of the casing (at approximately ground level) to the bottom of the casing at 160 feet. The Intermediate aquifer releases water at a much slower rate than the Floridan aquifer. Based on the type and location of the Falkner wells, the vast majority of the water pumped by the Falkners comes from the Floridan aquifer. Impacts on existing wells are calculated through computer modeling. The "MOD" flow model demonstrates impacts that will occur after 90 days of pumping at peak month levels with no recharge to the aquifer. The MOD flow model results in a conservative "worst case" projection. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 1 to be approximately .9 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 2 to be approximately 1.4 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at the Booth well to be approximately one-half foot. The impact on the DeVito well will not exceed that projected at the Booth well. District permitting criteria allow for projected MOD flow model drawdown impacts of less than five feet at existing wells. The impact possible after approval of this application falls well within the District's guidelines. The impact of pumping if the application at issue in this proceeding is approved will result in a maximum variation of one-half foot at the Booth well. The evidence fails to establish that any problems related to water quantity encountered by the Booths are related to agricultural pumping at the Falkner farms. The evidence also establishes that, based on the existing retention and drainage system, the proposed use will not adversely impact surrounding surface water bodies. A system of swales and ditches is utilized to retain the water on the farm property. The evidence fails to establish that runoff from the Falkner/Rogers farm will adversely impact surrounding surface waters if this application is approved. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. The evidence establishes that the runoff from the Falkner farm does not discharge directly to the stream at the rear of the DeVito property. Other agricultural property discharges into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. There is a steady waterflow through the stream at all times, whether or not the Falkner pumps are operating. Ms. DeVito's property consists of Myakka soil, which has little capacity to absorb rainfall and generates large amounts of runoff. The altered drainage patterns in the area have resulted in substantial water on her property. The evidence in insufficient to establish that the Falkner farm pumping has resulted in flooding on Ms. DeVito's property. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the application at issue in this proceeding will cause adverse impact to the DeVito property or will result in water quality or quantity problems. The Booths are concerned that the existing drainage system will not be maintained and that increased pumping will result in their land being flooded again. The evidence fails to establish a substantial likelihood that the Falkner farm drainage system will not be maintained. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The Falkners use a semi-enclosed seep irrigation system at the Rogers farm. Irrigation is only used when necessary. Mushroom compost, humates, and plastic mulch retain moisture in the soil. A special condition of the permit requires the Falkners investigate the feasibility of tail water recovery and reuse. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The permit application results in no increased withdrawal of water than is allowed under the existing permits for the Rogers and the "301" farms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the Falkner application and issuing permit number 206938.03. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, 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 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 95-5763 and 95-5764 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners Booth The Petitioners Booth proposed findings of fact fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires citations to the record of hearing. The proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence except where they are consistent with the Findings of Fact set forth herein. Respondents The Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, cumulative. 28-29. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Rose Ann DeVito, pro se 11001 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Diana P. and Charles B. Booth, pro se 10812 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Patricia Petruff, Esquire Dye and Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 Martin Hernandez, Esquire 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
