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 Whether Pasco County should be granted operating permits for Embassy Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (Case 92-2489); Hudson WWTP (Case 92-2489); Hudson WWTP (Case 92-2488); and 8 Rapid Rate Infiltration Basins (RRIB) in Northwest Pasco County (Case 93-3091); whether the permit for RRIB should be granted to construct 10 RRIBs rather than 8 (Case 93-3641); whether these facilities can be operated without damage to the area potable and ground water systems; and whether the operating permit should include the provisions of a settlement agreement entered into between Matis, Pasco County and DER dated December 7, 1987. Whether the challenge to these permits was timely filed by Petitioner was resolved prior to the hearing and will not be revisited.
Findings Of Fact (Findings 1-80 below are from the prehearing stipulation submitted by the parties) The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system in Pasco County, Florida. The Department is a state agency created pursuant to Section 20.261, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for protecting Florida's air and water resources in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Matis owns and resides at 11220 Denton Avenue, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida; her property is approximately 330 acres in size. In 1987, Matis filed a petition for formal administrative hearing against the Department and the County, in which she challenged the Department's proposed agency action to approve the County's applications for construction permits concerning the Embassy Hills WWTP (Permit Number DC51-128933) and the Hudson WWTP (Permit Number DC51-130307). That case was subsequently assigned DOAH Case No. 87-4781. Case No. 87-4781 was resolved by virtue of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. Matis, the County, and the Department were each parties to the 1987 Settlement Agreement. Paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 Settlement Agreement states: That the Respondent, Pasco County, will modify the permit application No. DC51-128933 as follows: . . . (c) The County agrees to reduce the number of ponds constructed at the Embassy disposal site located on Denton Avenue from fourteen (14) to nine (9) ponds by eliminating the five (5) most easterly ponds depicted on the County's construction plans; . . . The County subsequently modified its application for Permit Number DC51-128933 so as to delete the five most easterly ponds referred to in paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. The Department subsequently issued Permit Numbers DC51-128933 and DC51- 130307, authorizing construction of the Embassy Hills and Hudson facilities, respectively. Permit Number DC51-128933 did not include authorization to construct the five ponds referred to in paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. The County has not violated that portion of Section 2 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the County, the Department and Matis which requires the County to construct a Floridian Aquifer and shallow aquifer monitor well cluster at the Hudson WWTP site at a location acceptable to Matis. The County has not violated that portion of Section 2 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement which requires the County to monitor effluent discharged from the Hudson WWTP on a quarterly basis for the parameters specified in EPA Methods 601 and 602. The County has not violated Section 10 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The County has not violated Section 13 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The County has not violated Section 14 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. If the County and the Department comply with the 1987 Settlement Agreement, Matis will not be adversely affected by the proposed operation permits for the Embassy Hills and Hudson WWTPs (Permit Numbers DO51-203667 and DO51-203666). The County applied for Permit DO51-203666 (Hudson WWTP) on appropriate Department forms. The County applied for Permit DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) on appropriate Department forms. The County's application for Permit DO51-203666 (Hudson WWTP) was certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. The County's application for Permit DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) was certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. The County's application for Permit DO51-203666 (Hudson WWTP) was accompanied by a written certification by the permittee on Form 17-600.910(2) that an appropriate operation and maintenance manual is available at a specified location for the Hudson WWTP and the on-site percolation pond system. The County's application for Permit DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) was accompanied by a written certification by the permittee on Form 17- 600.910(2) that an appropriate operation and maintenance manual is available at a specified location for the Embassy Hills WWTP and each associated disposal site. The Hudson WWTP is a Type I facility. The Embassy Hills WWTP is a Type I facility. The Hudson WWTP is enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed to discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons. The Embassy Hills WWTP is enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed to discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons. The Hudson WWTP's on-site percolation pond system is a Type I facility. The Denton Avenue Percolation Pond System is a Type I facility. The proposed Northwest RRIBs project is a Type I facility. The Hudson WWTP's on-site percolation pond system is a rapid rate land application system, as that term is defined in 17-610.510. The Denton Avenue Percolation Pond System is a rapid rate land application system as that term is defined in Rule 17-610.510, Florida Administrative Code. The Northwest RRIBs project is a rapid rate land application system, as that term is defined in Rule 17-610.510, Florida Administrative Code. There are no storage or holding ponds incorporated in the Hudson WWTP's on-site percolation pond system. There are no storage or holding ponds incorporation in the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond System. There are no storage or holding ponds proposed for the Northwest RRIBs project. The Hudson WWTP's on-site percolation ponds are designed to provide at least three feet of freeboard. The Denton Avenue Percolation Ponds are designed to provide at least three feet of freeboard. The Northwest RRIBs are designed to provide at least three feet of freeboard. Signs or other type of notice are posted around the Hudson WWTP's on- site percolation pond system, which designate the nature of the project area. Signs or other type of notice are posted around the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond site, which designate the nature of the project area. Signs or other type of notice will be posted around the Northwest RRIBs site, which designate the nature of the project area. There is fencing around the Hudson WWTP's percolation ponds on-site. There is fencing around the percolation ponds at the Denton Avenue Percolation Ponds site. There will be fencing around the percolation ponds at the Northwest RRIBs site. There is a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the percolation ponds at the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond site to any potable water supply well. There will be a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the percolation ponds at the Northwest RRIBs site to any potable water supply well. There is a set back distance of at lest 500 feet from the edge of the Hudson WWTP's percolation ponds on-site to any Class I Water. There is a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the percolation ponds at the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond site to any Class I Water. There will be a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the percolation ponds at the Northwest RRIBs site to any Class I Water. There is a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the Hudson WWTP's percolation ponds on-site to any Class II Water. There is a set back distance of at least 500 feet from the edge of the percolation ponds at the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond site to any Class II Water. There is a set back distance of at least 500 feet form the edge of the percolation ponds at the Northwest RRIBs site to any Class II Water. There is a set back distance of at least 100 feet from any Hudson WWTP wastewater transmission facility to any public water supply well. There is a set back distance of at least 100 feet from the Denton Avenue Percolation Pond site to any public water supply well. There is a set back distance of at least 100 feet from the Northwest RRIBs site to any public water supply well. Matis does not object to or challenge that portion of proposed Permit Number DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) which relates to the Fox Hollow Percolation Pond System. Matis does not object to or challenge that portion of proposed Permit Number DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) which relates to the Beacon Woods Golf Course Reuse System. Matis does not object to or challenge that portion of proposed Permit Number DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) which relates to the Beacon Woods East Golf Course Reuse System. Matis does not object to or challenge that portion of proposed Permit Number DO51-203667 (Embassy Hills WWTP) which relates to the Timber Oaks Golf Course Reuse System. On December 23, 1992, the Department's Intent to Issue Permit Number DC51-214670 was published in the Pasco Times. On December 23, 1992, Matis saw and read an Intent to Issue Permit Number DC51-214670 published in the Pasco Times. Matis' property receives wastewater service from a septic tank located on the east side of her house. Matis' septic tank was installed in 1965, and it has not been replaced or serviced since that time. Since Matis' septic tank was installed in 1965, she has never had any wastewater removed from it. Matis is not aware of any water quality or contamination problems on her property. All water quality analyses which Matis has performed on her well water has revealed no contamination. Matis has never experienced an inability to pump water from her wells. Matis is not aware of any land collapse or sinkhole problems on her property. Matis' property includes approximately 240 to 250 acres of planted pine trees. Matis has had cattle operations on her property since around 1967. Presently, Matis has approximately 30 head of cattle on her property. Matis is not aware of any adverse affects to her agricultural operations caused by the historical operations of the County's wastewater facilities. Matis is not aware of any adverse affects to her property caused by the historical operations of the County's existing wastewater facilities. Matis is not an expert in the field of engineering, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, wastewater system design, wastewater system operation, wastewater treatment methods, wastewater disinfection, sinkhole formation, biology, botany, ecology, groundwater modeling, water quality analysis, or air quality analysis. By letter dated November 17, 1992, Attorney William Deane requested the Department to provide his client (Respondent Marie Cook Matis), through his office, actual notice of the proposed agency action regarding the Northwest RRIBs construction permit application. On December 22, 1992, the Department furnished Matis (via her attorney, Mr. Deane) a telephonic facsimile copy of an Intent to Issue Permit Number DC51-214670 for the Northwest RRIBs. On December 23, 1992, the County (as permit applicant) had an Intent to Issue Permit Number DC51-214670 published in the Pasco Times. On December 23, 1992, the Pasco Times was a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Northwest RRIBs project. On December 29, 1992, the Department's Southwest District Office hand delivered a copy of the Intent to Issue Permit Number DC51-214670 to Matis. On or about January 5, 1993, Mr. Deane's associate (i.e., Attorney Charles Hinton) sent the Department's attorney, Francine Ffolkes, a letter which stated: RE: Construction Permit Number DC51-214670 Northwest Pasco Rapid Infiltration Basins Notice of Intent Dear Ms. Ffolkes: This is to confirm our conversation this morning regarding the above referenced permit. Pursuant to that conversation, it is our understanding that Ms. Matis received actual notice of the above-referenced Notice of Intent on December 29, 1992. Accordingly, Ms. Matis has until January 12, 1993 to file a motion or objection to this permit. If this is in anyway incorrect, please contact my office immediately. Sincerely, /s/ Charles D. Hinton Charles D. Hinton Sent by facsimile this 5 day of January, 1993. Mr. Hinton did not send a copy of the foregoing letter to the County or otherwise advise the County regarding his conversation with Ms. Ffolkes. On January 12, 1993, Matis' Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing concerning the Northwest RRIBs construction permit (Permit Number DC51-214670) was received by the Department's Office of General Counsel. Matis' sole objection to the proposed operating permits for Embassy Hills WWTP and Hudson WWTP is that they do not incorporate the terms of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. No evidence was submitted that Pasco County is not complying with the terms of this settlement agreement or that the operation of these plants will in any wise affect Matis' property. The evidence is unrebutted that these plants have been operating for over two years without violations and that the effluent from these plants meets all statutory and regulatory requirements. So far as practicable the treated wastewater from these plants (and other WWTPs operated by Pasco County) is reused for irrigating golf courses, orange groves, and for residential irrigation. It is only during rainy periods when irrigation is not called for that this effluent is discharged through the infiltration basins. Both of these plants are Type I conventional activated sludge with anoxic denitrification wastewater treatment plants and meet the limitations for ph, BOD, nitrates, chlorine, sodium and dissolved solids contained in the proposed operating permit conditions. Although these operating limits for BOD, TSS and nitrates in the proposed operating permit exceed those in the construction permit and the Settlement Agreement, the proposed permit meets all statutory and regulatory requirements which the Department is called upon to enforce. The actual operation of these WWTPs meet the elevated standards of 15BOD, 5TSS, and 10 nitrates contained in the construction permit and Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, Pasco County is in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Pasco County, like much of central Florida, is a Karst area subject to sinkholes. To insure the proposed rapid rate infiltration basins will not constitute a threat to the aquifer below the sites selected for these RRIBs, transects were taken, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service was engaged to conduct ground penetrating radar (GPR) studies of these areas. For any of those areas showing a possibility of below ground caverns or other evidence of potential sinkhole, borings were taken to determine the conditions below the surface of the ground. The GPR survey coupled with these "truth" borings revealed that the sites selected for these RRIBs are safe and appropriate for use as infiltration basins to receive the treated effluent from these plants. Five of the proposed RRIBs located closest to Matis' property were removed from the 1987 Pasco County construction permit application as a result of the Settlement Agreement. That Agreement did not preclude Pasco County from later seeking authorization to construct these RRIBs. It is the construction of these five RRIBs that Matis here protests. Matis' property is upgrade from these RRIBs and from the WWTPs here involved. Accordingly, it is virtually impossible for effluent from these RRIBs to reach Matis' property or her potable water well. In fact, the most likely source of contamination of Matis' potable water well is Matis' septic tank which is located upgrade from her potable water well. Pasco County currently reaches about 80 percent utilization of the effluent from its WWTPs as reused water for irrigation of golf courses, orange groves, residences, etc. It is seeking 100 percent utilization of its treated effluent for reuse. This will conserve potable water from the aquifers and better enable Pasco County to supply adequate potable water to its increasing population. To accomplish better reuse of treated effluent from its WWTPs Pasco County intends to install a master reuse plan wherein wastewater effluent from all the WWTPs in the county would feed into a single looped system. This system would intermingle all of the wastewater and then dispose of this wastewater at all of the county's reuse points. When the reuse points cannot absorb the wastewater due to rain or high water conditions, the wastewater would be discharged into the RRIBs. Although the construction of the additional five RRIBs to which Matis objects exceed the minimal disposal capacity required by the Department, having this excess disposal capacity reduces the possibility of contamination of surface waters from the treated wastewater from these WWTPs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Permit Number DO51-203666 be issued for the operation of Hudson WWTP; that Permit Number DO51-203667 be issued for the operation of Embassy Hills WWTP; and that Permit Number DC51-214670 be issued for construction of the ten Northwest Pasco County RRIBs. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 22nd day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2488 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those neither accepted nor noted below were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 16. Rejected in part. Matis saw the Notice of Intent to issue the permits here at issue published in the Pasco Times on December 23, 1992, and on December 22, 1992, Matis' attorney was furnished a facsimile copy of this notice. A copy was personally delivered to Matis by a DER representative on December 29, 1992. 24. Rejected. 30-32. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected. DER adopted the proposed findings submitted by Pasco County. Those findings are accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Pasco County and not included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached largely because Petitioner Matis challenged only the refusal of DER to include the provisions of the Settlement Agreement in the operation permit for the WWTPs and to grant construction permits for the five RRIBs withdrawn from the petition in 1987 as a result of the Settlement Agreement. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Deane, Esquire Charles D. Hinton, Esquire Deane & Hinton, P.A. Post Office Box 7473 St. Petersburg, Florida 33734 David M. Caldevilla, Esquire Post Office Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Keith Hetrick, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00451 seeks a consumptive water use permit for an existing use involving 14 withdrawal points. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 20.2584 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 45.8539 million gallons per day. The water will be used for citrus processing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above-referenced meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly, beginning on January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
Recommendation It is hereby Recommended that a consumptive use permit in the amounts and from the points set forth in the application be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Lykes Pasco Packing Company Post Office Box 97 Dade City, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill canal system should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project On March 19, 1998, Petitioner Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill Pines and Palms subdivision on Big Pine key. A backhoe would be used to dredge and lower the plugs to a depth of minus five feet mean low water (-5 ft. MLW) for the purpose of providing boating access to the properties now isolated from open water. The Cahill canal system is located within class III waters of the state which open into Pine Channel, a natural waterbody designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In 1991 and 1995 Petitioner Cahill submitted permit applications to the Department to remove the same two canal plugs. Those applications were initially denied and the denials were litigated in formal administrative hearings. Those hearings resulted in Department final orders denying both applications.3 Background4 In July, 1991, the Department received a permit application requesting the removal of two canal plugs down to a depth of minus five-and-a-half feet NGVD. A formal administrative hearing was conducted on March 3 and 4, 1994, in Key West, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer (now Administrative Law Judge) of the Division of Administrative Hearings. That initial permit application denial was based upon water quality considerations and the project's failure to meet the public interest test. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a permit application to the Department which was denied. The basis for the permit denial was that the project was substantially similar to the previously litigated project. On April 23, 1996, a second formal administrative hearing was held in Key West, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland. Judge Kirkland found that the 1995 permit application did not address the issues raised by the Department in the first administrative hearing. Judge Kirkland also concluded that the 1995 application should be denied on the basis of res judicata. The Department entered a Final Order on September 12, 1996, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to support the denial of Petitioner's 1995 application. New facts/changed conditions In all material aspects, the proposed dredging activity in the current permit application is identical to the previously proposed dredging activity. Petitioner Cahill seeks to lower the two canal plugs to allow boat access. The documents submitted in support of the current application do not propose any significant changes to what was proposed in the two prior applications. Petitioner Cahill provided copies of provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and two Monroe County Ordinances, in support of the current permit application. This information does not constitute new facts or changed conditions sufficient to characterize the proposed project as substantially different from the previously denied applications. Petitioner Cahill provided a list of "enhancements" in the current permit application seeking to provide reasonable assurance for issuance of an environmental resource permit. These proposed "enhancements" are not binding on the Petitioner Cahill's members and do not constitute such new facts or changed conditions as to make the project substantially different from the previously denied applications. The differences between the current application and the two previously denied applications are primarily cosmetic differences. The substance of the matter is unchanged in any material detail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying Petitioner's pending application for an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1998.
The Issue The issues for disposition are whether BJM Associates, Inc. is required to apply for and obtain a drainage connection permit pursuant to rule 14-86, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, whether BJM Associates, Inc., has failed to obtain that permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, BJM Associates, Inc. (BJM) is the owner and developer of Rosetta Villas Subdivision, located in Orange County, Florida, (Respondent’s prehearing Statement) Petitioner, Department of Transportation (D0T) purchased an adjacent parcel, including a retention pond, “Pond A”, in 1991, in anticipation of a road-improvement or extension project for Maitland Boulevard. The pond was purchased from Rose Industrial Park, a permitted development also adjacent to the pond. Rosetta Villas Subdivision received Orange County subdivision approval in 1986 and 1988, and a St. John’s River Water Management District permit for stormwater facilities in 1991. Lots have been platted, streets have been constructed and homes have been sold. Rosetta Villas Subdivision includes a water retention pond on-site, built in 1995. There is a pipe from that pond which discharges water into a ditch that is partially within the DOT right of way. The ditch has a 30-inch concrete pipe which discharges into DOT’s Pond A. There is some indication in the record that a diversion ditch was part of an over-all permit for the Rose Industrial Park development prior to DOT’s purchase of Pond A. The diversion ditch was intended to convey stormwater around, and not into Pond A. The diversion ditch south of Rosetta Villas and north of Pond A does not convey Rosetta Villas’ run off around Pond A. Instead the 30-inch concrete pipe conveys Rosetta Villas’ overflow water into Pond A. The 30-inch concrete pipe was constructed by BJM in 1995 after an existing, much smaller, pipe became clogged. BJM contends that the pipe was replaced at the direction of someone from DOT. While that contention is not disputed, nothing in this record supports any suggestion that DOT is now estopped from requiring a drainage connection permit. At hearing BJM’s own expert witness opined that the 30-inch pipe which now discharges into Pond A requires a connection permit. (Transcript, p. 130) BJM does not have that permit and, after meetings and extensive discussion with DOT staff, has not applied for the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Transportation issue its Final Order requiring BJM to apply for a drainage connection permit pursuant to chapter 14-86, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February 1997. ENDDNOTE 1/ BJM presented extensive evidence regarding the diversion ditch or swale and its intended purpose. It may be possible for BJM to redirect its out-flow however, the current status of the drainage system. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Burns Building, Mail Station 58 608 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Bernard J. Martin, Esquire 506 Wymore Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn.: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the applicants own the property in question? Whether the project would comply with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District contained in Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Systems, specifically Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2? Whether flood protection would be inadequate or septic tanks unsuitable or whether the public health and safety would be compromised or the ultimate purchasers be deprived of usage of the property due to inundation in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1981), or Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williamson and Messrs. Leggett and Collins hold in fee simple a triangular 117.24-acre parcel in Okeechobee County as tenants in common under a warranty deed executed in their favor by one W. C. Sherman. They propose to develop the property as a trailer park (complete with airstrip) large enough to accommodate 109 trailers. To this end, soil would be dug up from the center of the property and used to raise the elevation of the surrounding land above the 100-year floodplain. (T. 47) The applicants have a dredging permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing them to excavate 629,889 cubic yards. They are proposing to dig to a depth of 76 feet below ground. This would create an 18-acre body of water ("Poe's Lake") which would overflow a V-notched weir into a county canal. The county canal would take the water to C- 38, one of the large canals to which the Kissimmee River has been relegated, at a point about 18 miles upstream from Lake Okeechobee. Runoff would wash over residential lots and roadways; the site would be graded to assure drainage into Poe's Lake. The minimum road crest elevation would be 30 feet NGVD ("[a]round twenty-nine feet" T.52), as compared to the control elevation for surface waters of 28.5 feet NGVD. WATER QUALITY The developers plan septic tanks for wastewater treatment. At the close of all the evidence, counsel for the applicants stated that sanitary sewers could be installed instead. Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order, p. With all the housing units in use, at least 10,900 gallons of effluent would seep into the ground from the tanks daily. There would be some evapotranspiration, but all the chemicals dissolved in the effluent would eventually end up in the groundwater. During the dry season, septic tank effluent would cause mounding of the groundwater and some groundwater movement toward, and eventual seepage into, Poe's Lake. The eventual result would be eutrophication and the growth of algae or macrophytes on the surface of Poe's Lake. This would cause dissolved oxygen violations in Poe's Lake. Discharges from the lake would inevitably occur, aggravating the situation in C-38, which already experiences dissolved oxygen levels below 5.0 milligrams per liter in the rainy summer months. Some fraction of the nutrients in the effluent from the septic tanks would ultimately reach Lake Okeechobee itself. The sheer depth of the excavation would create another water quality problem. Under the anaerobic conditions that would obtain at the bottom of Poe's Lake, bacteria acting on naturally occurring sulfates would produce hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and various other reduced organic nitrogen compounds. These substances are toxic to human beings and would, in some indeterminate quantity, enter the groundwater from Poe's Lake. This would affect the taste and perhaps the potability of water from any well nearby. It would be "possible to design a better system where there would be nutrient removal and a greatly reduced probability of violation of the dissolved oxygen criterion and obviation of the potential for ground water contamination." (T. 200) Installation of a baffle on the weir would serve to prevent buoyant debris from entering surface waters of the state. BASIS OF REVIEW Official recognition was taken of the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florid Water Management District," parts of which all parties agree pertain in the present proceedings. Among the criteria stated in this document are: 3.1.3 Waste and Wastewater Service - Potable water and wastewater facilities must be identified. The Applicant for a Surface Water Management Permit must provide information on how these services are to be provided. If wastewater disposal is accomplished on-site, additional information will normally be requested regarding separation of waste and storm systems. 3.2.1.4 Flood protection - Building floors shall be above the 100 year flood elevations, as determined from the most appropriate information, including Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Both tidal flooding and the 100 year, 3 day storm event shall be considered in determining elevations. b. Commercial and industrial projects to be subdivided for sale are required to have installed by the permittee, as a minimum, the required water quality system for one inch of runoff detention or one half inch of runoff retention from the total developed site. State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet State water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3, Retention/detention criteria - Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof . . . Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff from a 3-year, 1-hour rainfall event, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. 3.2.4.1 Discharge structures should include gratings for safety and maintenance purposes. The use of trash collection screens is desirable. Discharge structures shall include a "baffle" system to encourage discharge from the center of the water column rather than the top or bottom. 3.2.4.4.2 b. Control elevations should be no higher than 2 feet below the minimum road centerline elevation in the area served by the control device in order to protect the road subgrade. Simply detaining runoff before discharging it offsite will not insure that the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3 will be met. Whether the standards are met depends on, among other things, the composition of the runoff. FWF'S INTEREST Among the purposes of the FWF, as stated in its charter, Shall be to further advance the cause of conservation in environmental protection, to perpetuate and conserve fish and wildlife, oil, water, clean air, other resources of the State and so manage the use of all natural resources, that this generation and posterity will receive the maximum benefit from the same. (T. 248-9) Four or five thousand Floridians belong to FWF. FWF members "make use" (T. 250) of the waters of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River and specifically of the waters in C-38. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED The applicants and FWF filed post hearing memoranda and proposed recommended orders including proposed findings of fact which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. They have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny the pending application for surface water management permit. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II, 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 29th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Powers, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart 400 South County Road Palm Beach 33480 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Irene Kennedy Quincey, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Charles P. Houston, Esquire 324 Datura Street, Suite 106 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for renewal of water use permit application #200781.02 should be granted to withdraw a combined average withdrawal of 9,320,000 gallons of water per day and a maximum combined withdrawal rate of 18,600,000 gallons per day, subject to the terms and conditions listed in proposed permit for use at applicant's Haynesworth Mane.
Findings Of Fact IMCF operates a phosphate mining facility known as the Haynesworth Mine located on SR 37 in western Polk County, south of Bradley Junction. IMCF leases this mine from Brewster Phosphates, which is a joint venture of American Cyanamid Corporation and Kerr-McGee Corporation. The mine includes approximately 14,100 acres. IMCF took control of the mine from Brewster in 1986. At the time IMCF took control of this mine, a consumptive water use permit was extant which was due to expire in 1989. It is to renew this permit that the application here being considered was filed. After requesting and obtaining additional information and evaluating the application, Respondent issued its notice of intent to issue the permit. Phosphate ore is extracted by a dragline which opens mining cuts of 30 to 40 feet in depth at this facility. Seepage occurs into the mine cuts which must be removed in order to see and extract the phosphate ore. Dewatering is also necessary to protect the dragline from slope stability problems. Water pumped out of the mining cuts is introduced into the mine water recirculating system where it is used for numerous purposes, such as hydraulically pumping the extracted material to the beneficiation plant where clay and sand is extracted from the phosphate ore. The beneficiation plant uses large quantities of water, utilizing supplies from within the mine system (surface waters) and some from deep wells. It is the water from the deep wells that is the primary concern of the Intervenor. The surface water comes primarily from rainfall, mine cut seepage and make up water from the deep wells. Recycled water is of lower quality than well water due to the presence of organic materials or suspended solids, but it is used for many purposes, such as washing ore before being sent to settling ponds and later decanted from the top of the settling areas and returned to the water recirculating system. By use of recircled water in the beneficiation plant, the quantity of well water needed in later stages of the mining process and for make up due to evaporation and transpiration losses is reduced. Evidence presented shows that IMCF, by improving the recirculation system, has reduced the amount of well water needed in the overall mining process from 1220 gallons of deep well water per ton of phosphate rock produced in 1987 to 775 gallons per ton in 1989. The use here proposed is greater than was approved in the expiring permit; however, this increase is due almost entirely to the inclusion of the water pumped in the dewatering operation and the sealing water wells which were not counted in earlier years in determining the quantity permitted to be pumped. Withdrawal of water from the mine cuts affects only the surficial aquifer and can result in a withdrawal of water from adjoining property. To mitigate this problem, a setback of 1100 feet from adjacent property has been established in which mining cannot be conducted. Additionally, a ditch is to be installed between the mining cut and the property line which is kept full of water to provide recharge to the surficial aquifer. Phosphate mining is a reasonable and beneficial use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. The use here proposed was grandfathered in long before the Intervenor received a consumptive use permit in 1986 and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application. Considerable testimony was presented describing the computer modelling process used by IMCF and SFWMD in determining that the maximum drawdown of the water allowed by this proposed permit would not have a deleterious effect on adjacent property owners or on the Florida aquifer from which much of this water will be drawn. As a result, it is found that the rate of flow in nearby streams or watercourse will not be lowered; the level of the potentiometric surface will not be lowered below the regulatory level established by SFWMD; the drawdown will not induce salt water encroachment; will not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation will be significantly affected on property not owned by the applicant; will not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level; and the granting of this permit is in the public interest. The Intervenor's property consists of a 62 acre orange grove planted on reclaimed phosphate land that was mined more than 30 years ago and is surrounded by the 14,100 acres now controlled by IMCF. Her primary concern is that IMCF's mining operations will withdraw surficial water that would otherwise go to her orange grove, and that sufficient water will be withdrawn from the Florida aquifer that she will not have sufficient water to irrigate her grove. To support this position, Intervenor presented evidence that prior to 1986 her grove prospered with only natural rainfall. However, in 1986 it was found necessary to install a well to provide irrigation to this grove; and a permit was obtained from SFWMD. Subsequently, during a dry spell in April 1988 the surface pressure at Intervenor's pump dropped from 22 psi to less than 15 psi, and she was told the pumps would be burned out if pumping continued and the pressure dropped further. She attributed this low pressure at her pump to IMCF taking water from the aquifer from which her water also was drawn. During the period around April 1988, the ground water level dropped 15 to 20 feet below the average level of the water from which Intervenor drew her irrigation water. This resulted in the submersible pump having to lift water 15 to 20 feet (or more) higher than it had to lift when the pressure of the pump was 22 psi. In other words, Intervenor's pump was completely submerged in the water in the upper Florida aquifer, but the pump was not powerful enough to provide 22 psi pressure at the earth's surface. Changes in the ground water levels vary during each year depending on the amount of rainfall and the demands of those removing water from the aquifer. Spring time usage is normally heavy for agricultural purposes, and, as shown on Exhibit 25, each spring the ground water levels are closer to sea level than at any other time of the year. Intervenor also contended that IMCF should retain all of the water used in the mining process on its land rather than allowing the excess during heavy rainfall periods to be discharged into the Alafia River. No evidence was presented by Intervenor to show this to be a feasible solution; nor was evidence presented that this discharge polluted the Alafia River as contended by Intervenor. The Haynesworth Mine is a stationary installation which is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. Accordingly, it is required to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation to discharge water into the Alafia River and is subject to various restrictions in so doing. No evidence was presented that IMCF or Haynesworth Mines violated any of the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, in this regard.
Recommendation It is recommended that consumptive use permit #200781.02 be issued to IMC Fertilizer Inc., subject to the conditions contained in the draft permit. ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Sims, Esquire Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, FL 32802 Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34699-6899 Faye Dobbs Post Office Box 3407 Lakeland, FL 33802
The Issue Whether the application of Telegraph Cypress Water Management District to modify an existing surface water management system permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing pursuant to Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The District is a multipurpose water management agency with principal offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. Telegraph Cypress Water Management District (TCWMD) is a water control district organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Agricultural operations have been conducted within the TCWMD for more than 30 years by the landowner, Babcock Florida Company. The TCWMD is the permittee of record. James D. English, Jr., owns, along with other members of his family, an orange grove and pasture in Lee County, Florida. The English family has owned the property for approximately 120 years. On November 10, 1992, James D. English, Jr., and the Panacea Timber Company filed a petition for formal administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. Cypress Creek Partnership is a Florida General Partnership of which James D. English, Jr., is a principal. The partnership engages in agricultural activities in Lee County, Florida. The Alva Cemetery, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which owns and manages a cemetery facility in Lee County Florida. The cemetery has been in active use for approximately 120 years. In recent years, Alva Cemetery has experienced occasions of excess water encroaching onto the cemetery property. On November 12, 1992, Alva Cemetery, Inc., filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. James D. English, Jr., Cypress Creek Partnership and Alva Cemetery, Inc., are herein referred to as Petitioners. The TCWMD and the Petitioner English share a common property boundary. The Alva Cemetery is surrounded by the English property. All lands involved in this matter historically drain towards the Caloosahatchee River. The TCWMD includes approximately 89,120 acres of land located in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. The land uses within the TCWMD include agricultural, cattle, and timber operations. Generally, the fields have been leased to third party farmers who use the field for several years. When the fields are not actively farmed, they are returned to a fallow state and used as pasture land until fertility is restored at which time they are reactivated for farming. Active farms fields are generally surrounded by a perimeter ditch and dike system. Pumps may be used to water and de-water the fields. When the field is returned to a fallow state, the ditch and dike system are not maintained and become less prominent either by action of weather or by intent. Pumps are not present. All of the TCWMD lies generally north to northwest of the property owned by the Petitioners. Surface waters flow onto the Petitioners' lands from the north. The Telegraph-Cypress system is unique and is the largest of its kind in South Florida Water Management District jurisdiction. The TCWMD system includes storage/detention facilities, control structures, pumping stations and an extensive network of internal canals. There are nine separate water management basins within the TCWMD. The Petitioners asserted that the water management basins identified by the District and the TCWMD are incorrect. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the District's identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The land encompassed by the instant application for permit modification includes three of the nine basins and encompasses approximately 51,400 acres of the TCWMD. Surface water discharge from the relevant farm fields flows via the internal canal network and sheet flow to the three common detention basins: Telegraph Swamp, North Telegraph Swamp ("Telegraph North") and Curry Lake. The Telegraph North basin lies to the north of and discharges into the Telegraph Swamp basin and includes 13,799 acres of which 4,094 acres are farm fields. The drainage into the Curry Lake basin does not impact either the Telegraph North or Telegraph Swamp basins or the Petitioners' properties. The evidence establishes that as to the Telegraph North and Curry Lake drainage basins, the permit modification meets applicable permitting criteria. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. Telegraph Swamp is the largest of the three relevant detention systems. The Telegraph Swamp basin includes a total of 32,707 acres of which 4,381 acres are farm fields. Telegraph Swamp is a 4,390-acre wetland vegetated by cypress trees and sawgrass, with a base of muck soils, humus, topsoil, leaf litter and other organic material. Located at the south end of Telegraph Swamp are surface water management control structures (the Big Island Dike) built in 1975 and permitted in the original 1980 permit. The structures include three broad-crested weirs and one flash-board weir. Telegraph Swamp has been compared to a "sponge" capable of absorbing vast quantities of surface water discharges within the TCWMD before the control structures at the south end of the swamp are over-topped. Water discharged from the control structures flows through canals and creeks to the Caloosahatchee River. During storm events water is discharged over the control structures and into a swamp area south of Big Island Dike. From there, the water flows southerly, into Telegraph Creek, Big Island Canal and Cypress Creek and then into the Caloosahatchee. The Petitioners expressed concern that TCWMD could inappropriately discharge water from the control gates in the Telegraph Swamp weir. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Discharge structures in the Telegraph Swamp basin shall remain fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevations, except that structure gates and weirs may only be removed during emergency conditions upon notification to and consent by the District's Fort Myers Service Center regulatory area manager or designee. The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989, incorporated into Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, provides the applicable water quantity permitting criteria relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioners assert that the control gates are required to be locked in accordance with Basis of Review section 3.2.4.1.b, which states: Discharge structures shall be fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevation, except that emergency devices may be installed with secure locking devices. Either the District or an acceptable govern- mental agency will keep the keys for any such devices. The Petitioners are correct. The rule requires secure locking devices. Such condition should be added to the permit The keys may remain with the TCWMD as "an acceptable governmental agency." In 1980, the District issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 08- 00004-S for the TCWMD to operate an existing surface water management system for an existing agricultural operation. The 1980 permit specifically authorizes "[o]peration of a water management system serving 89,120 acres of agricultural lands by a vast network of internal drainage and irrigation canals, a major dike, a major canal and 4 water control structures discharging via small tributary creeks and sloughs into the Caloosahatchee River." Although the permit has been subsequently modified, the authorization to operate the system has not been amended. While District enforcement staff have occasionally noted "performance deficiencies" on the TCWMD property, there have been no permit violations by the permittee. Deficiencies which have been called to the TCWMD's attention have been resolved. Special condition number five to the 1980 permit provides that "[d]ischarges of water onto adjacent lands may be continued to the extent that increased problems are not caused by such discharges." The Petitioners assert that the District has failed to acknowledge that water discharged from the Telegraph Cypress system flows into the Cypress Creek canal and has failed to consider the impact on the Cypress Creek receiving body. However in the staff report to the 1980 permit states as follows: The Telegraph Cypress basin has three major drainage outlets. These are Trout Creek on the west, Telegraph Creek in the center and Cypress Creek to the east. There is a fourth outlet in the northeastern corner of the property known as Jack's Branch, however, this outlet is small compared to the three major ones. Much of Telegraph's southeastern area was previously drained by Spanish Creek and County Line Canal. This historical drainage pattern was blocked when a company which is presently known as Golden Grove constructed a dike across their northern boundary. This dike causes increased flow in a westerly direction around the west end of the dike, thence southerly towards Cypress Creek. This increased flow has caused excess water problems to property owners downstream. In addition, the dike has blocked virtually all flow to Spanish Creek. The evidence fails to establish that, as asserted by the Petitioners, the District has failed to acknowledge the discharge of water to Cypress Creek or to consider the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body. In the instant case, the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body was not re- addressed because the permit modification being sought will cause no additional adverse impacts on existing conditions. Although not individually numbered and identified in the original 1980 permit, the evidence establishes that in 1980, all of the farm fields which are subject to this permit modification application were in existence. The applicant seeks no new water control structures. Other than that required to reactivate fallow farm fields, there is no new construction proposed in the instant application. The Petitioners assert that the instant permit modification application will result in construction of new farm fields. The evidence is contrary to the assertion. Proposed permit special condition No. 10 states that the permit does not include the construction of any new farm fields. The farm fields covered in the staff report would be permitted for reactivation from a fallow state without further permitting activity in the future, and without individual retention for each farm field. The modifications to the original 1980 permit have increased the total farm land area. There is no evidence that, except as specifically permitted and approved by the District, there has been alteration of historical discharge rates or routes. There has been considerable confusion regarding the permitting status of the operations as farm fields have been reactivated. Such reactivation entails grading and leveling fields, reconstruction of ditches and dikes and installation of pumping equipment. In order to provide for standardization in farm field reactivation, and to better monitor such activities, the District requested that the TCWMD seek to modify the existing permit. On February 8, 1991, the TCWMD submitted an application to modify the existing permit for the purpose of reactivating the existing farm fields located within the Telegraph North, Telegraph Swamp, and Curry Lake drainage basins. The proposed SWM permit modification authorizes the continued use of the previously permitted surface water management system for existing active and fallow farm fields and allows the reactivation of currently fallow farm fields without further permit modification by the District. Proposed SWM permit special condition No. 16 states that the District requires notification in letter form 30 days prior to all farm field reactivation activities. The proposed modification of the permit will provide the District with an enhanced ability to inspect the reactivated farm fields. Inherent in such reactivation is ditching and diking of the fields. Such operations have been authorized since the 1980 permit was issued. The work associated with field reactivation will be conducted in accordance with existing design criteria as set forth in the application. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Ditches and dikes associated with the farm fields encompassed by this authorization shall be constructed/maintained in conformance with the "Typical Field Layout And Detail Sheet," revised 10/12/93. The evidence establishes that the operations of the TCWMD as proposed by the permit modification application are within the authorization of the existing permit as previously modified. Otherwise stated, the award of this modification will have no substantial impact on the operation of the permitted surface water management system. The modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. The District has established water quantity criteria intended to insure that adverse impacts do not occur due to excess discharge. (Based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling on a District's Motion in Limine, water quality issues were not addressed at hearing.) The criteria are set forth at Chapter 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Basis of Review. In relevant part, the District criteria require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the surface water management system provides adequate flood drainage and protection, that the system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and that the system will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Modification of a permit must not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. In this case, reasonable assurances have been provided that the proposed modification will not exacerbate the historical and current drainage conditions. The permit modification application at issue does not propose to alter the rates or routes of water currently authorized for discharge from Telegraph Swamp. Reactivation of the farm fields will not impact receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. In providing reasonable assurances, the TCWMD analyzed the water storage capacity available in the detention basins, performed flood routing projections and calculated peak discharge rates for the permit area. As required by the district, the TCWMD utilized a standard hypothetical 25-year/3- day storm event in order to determine whether sufficient capacity was available to handle the resulting stormwater. The projections provide reasonable assurances that the common detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection and are accepted. Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates by reference a document identified as the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989" Section 3.2.1.2.b requires that: the proposed project modification must meet the allowable discharge rate; and the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. The TCWMD prepared and submitted discharge calculations establishing that the post-development discharges will not exceed the discharge rate previously accepted by the District. Since 1984, the District has previously accepted a peak allowable discharge rate of 39 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm). The csm figure is based upon the historical TCWMD discharge rate within the Caloosahatchee River basin. As previously stated, reactivation of the farm fields will not impact the receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. The District asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has been "permitted" since the 1984 modification was approved. The Petitioner asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has never been "permitted" by the District. The evidence establishes that since the 1984 application for permit modification, the discharge rate of 39csm has been utilized by TCWMD and has been accepted by the District, but that the actual permits do not specifically identify the discharge rate as 39csm. In projecting discharge rates, the TCWMD used a time of concentration of one hour. The time of concentration (T.O.C.) is the time in which water would move from the farm fields to the control structure in each sub-watershed. Otherwise stated, a projected T.O.C. of one hour means that the storm water would move from the field to the control structure in one hour. The T.O.C. of one hour is a conservative estimate and likely substantially overestimates the speed at which the water will move. The three basin areas contain a total of more than 80 square miles. Water will travel an average distance of two miles from field to detention basin through ditches, swales and existing low areas. Again conservatively, the TCWMD did not include projected travel time through such conveyances, resulting in a longer T.O.C. and resulting in a higher peak discharge rate than is probable. Although there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the District staff as to the application of the T.O.C. by the TCWMD, the TCWMD engineer who performed the calculation testified at hearing and was qualified as an expert witness in civil engineering, hydrology and surface water management. His testimony and projections are reasonable and are credited. Proposed SWM permit modification special condition No. 11 states that farm field discharge shall be directed to and conveyed via existing ditches, wetlands and/or sheetflow areas per existing site conditions. No new outfall ditches are permitted under this modification. Flood routings were calculated assuming all farm fields would be activated simultaneously and pumping the maximum capacity of 390 gallons per minute per acre (the equivalent of 20-21 inches of surface water pumped from each field daily). It is highly unlikely that all farm fields would be active simultaneously or that stormwater would continue to fall with such velocity to permit continued pumping at maximum capacity for an extended period. Even based on the conservative assumptions utilized by the TCWMD engineers, the projected peak discharge rate at the Telegraph Swamp control structure is 37csm to 38.5csm, within the maximum of 39csm previously accepted by the District. The computer modeling performed by the TCWMD engineer in calculating the peak discharge rate is accepted as reasonable. The TCWMD did not include offsite inflow in its analysis of projected capacity or discharge rates. There is anecdotal evidence that on occasion, water may flow into TCWMD from Jack's Branch or from across roadways to the north and west of the TCWMD; however, given the vast storage capacity of the TCWMD detention areas, there is no evidence that the quantity of offsite inflows is of such significance as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. As previously stated, the TCWMD calculations are reasonable and are accepted. The evidence establishes that the peak discharge rate resulting from approval of the instant permit modification will not exceed 39csm. The Petitioners offered their own peak discharge rate calculations, based on a "worst possible case scenario." The assumptions on which the Petitioners' projections are based are unreasonable and are rejected. Based on recommendations received at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Pumped discharge from farm fields for which pumps are not currently installed shall be limited to 75 gallons per minute per acre of farmed area. Pumps are currently installed in fields number 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 north and south, 28, east half of 34, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 80. The Petitioners assert that the system is currently causing adverse impacts to their properties in the form of flooding. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the system presently does not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and does not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. The evidence establishes that award of the application for permit modification will not adversely alter the current operations. It is clear that the Petitioners have been impacted by changes in the historical drainage patterns in the area; however, such changes had substantially occurred by 1980 when the original permit was issued. The greater weight of the credited evidence establishes that such impacts are not the result of the activities authorized in the original 1980 permit and in subsequent modifications, but instead are the result of unrelated actions by third parties not involved in this administrative proceeding. There is no credible evidence that the permit modification sought in the instant proceeding will adversely affect the Petitioners. The 1980 permit addresses existing water quantity problems in the area of the TCWMD project. For example, the construction of the Golden Grove Dike resulted in blockage of historical drainage towards Spanish Creek and the diversion of excess waters into Cypress Creek. During the 1980's the District required that culverts be installed in the Golden Grove Dike which eventually restored some surface water flow through the dike construction and on towards the south, although during some storm events water flow continues around the dike and into Cypress Creek. The Petitioners offered anecdotal evidence as to reduced water flows in some local creeks and increased flows thorough Cypress Creek. The Respondent offered evidence indicating that water flow through Cypress Creek may be less than 30 years ago, due to the digging of a canal between Spanish Creek and Cow Slough and the extension of the Clay Gully Canal's diversion of water into Telegraph Swamp. None of the evidence on this point was persuasive, however it is not relevant. Clearly, the instant permit modification application will not adversely affect the existing situation in the receiving bodies. The Petitioners assert that other receiving waterways have become clogged with vegetation, debris or soil, have accordingly reduced capacities, and are unable to accommodate historical discharge levels. Based on the lack of capacity, the Petitioners suggest that waters move towards the eastern portion of Telegraph Swamp and are discharged, flow towards, into and over the banks of Cypress Creek, and flood their properties. The TCWMD conducted a study of backwater profiles based upon credited field data. The study is found to be reasonable and is credited. Based upon the study, approximately 90 per cent of the water discharged from Telegraph Swamp is conveyed to the Caloosahatchee via Big Island Canal, Telegraph Creek and the swamp area south of the control structure. The remaining 10 per cent of the water enters the Bullhead Strand-Lightered Canal-Cypress Creek watercourse. Water flows from Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek via Bullhead Strand and the South Lightered Canal, however, the canal has become so restricted by vegetation that it provides little direct water flow between the strand and the creek and is more properly regarded as an area of enhanced sheet flow. The evidence does not establish that the surface water traveling from Bullhead Strand to Cypress Creek is of significance. Coupled with the existence of the Big Island Canal (which connects Telegraph Swamp to Telegraph Creek) it is unlikely that post-development surface water discharged from the Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek exceeds pre-development discharges. The Petitioners claim that two culverts in the Big Island canal restrict the flow of water through the canal and result in increased discharge to the east and to Cypress Creek. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that during period of time when the culverts are unable to accommodate water flow, the water travels into a broad flood plain, around the culverts and returns to the Big Island Canal. The evidence establishes that the proposed modification will not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. The adverse conditions affecting Cypress Creek existed at the time of the 1980 permit and are addressed in the staff report to that permit and to subsequent permit modifications. There is no credible evidence that modification of the permit as sought in this case will result in adverse impacts beyond those which have existed at the time of the award of the original permit. The Petitioners assert that the fields included within the permit modification application lack individual retention areas. The lack of individual detention areas is immaterial in this case where sufficient downstream detention capacity is available through the common detention areas. The Petitioners asserts that the Telegraph Swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" and that as such is fails to comply with requirements related to such water storage systems. The Telegraph Swamp is not a typical "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The regulations addressed by the Petitioners clearly state that they are not intended to be inclusive and are intended to provide guidelines and basic performance criteria for commonly encountered south Florida situations. Telegraph Swamp is not a commonly encountered south Florida situation. There is no evidence that the decision not to apply the "above-ground impoundment" regulations to the Telegraph Swamp is unreasonable. The Petitioner suggest that the TCWMD application for permit modification is deficient and fails to provide information in compliance with the Basis of Review. The Basis of Review is directed towards applications for new construction. The District reasonably does not interpret the all elements of the Basis of Review to apply to existing operations. The original staff report for this permit modification application fails to acknowledge that Cypress Creek is a receiving body. However, as stated previously, the 1980 application and subsequent modifications have clearly addressed the fact that Telegraph Swamp waters discharge to Cypress Creek via intervening waterways. The failure to include the reference in the staff report to this application for modification is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Surface Water Management Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S including the additional permit conditions set forth herein, to the Telegraph Cypress Water Management District. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 92-6900 and 92-6901 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 James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership consist of unnumbered paragraphs. Pages forty-five through fifty-nine of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership were stricken as set forth in the Order On Motion To Strike issued March 29, 1994. The paragraphs of pages five through forty-four of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership have been consecutively numbered and are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-2. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. 7-9. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. The staff report is not dispositive. 10-12. Rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, although the 39csm figure is not set forth in the permit, as of the 1984 modification, the TCWMD calculations have been based on a peak discharge rate of 39csm and that the District has accepted the calculations previously. The applicable criteria in the instant case require that the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. 13. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 15-16. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact, irrelevant, cumulative. 17-18. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 19. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that 39csm has been the peak discharge rate accepted by the District since 1984. The flow rate projected by the TCWMD does not exceed the accepted peak discharge rate. 24. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 26-28. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 29-30. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that 39csm has been the District's accepted peak discharge rate and that this modification will not result in peak discharge rates in excess of that which has been previously accepted. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, unnecessary. 36-45. Rejected, irrelevant. The anecdotal evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 46-52. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence fails to establishes that the swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 53-67. Rejected, irrelevant. An applicant for a permit modification is not required to supply every item on the checklist. An application for a modification to an existing permit often need not contain all the items described. 69. Rejected, cumulative. 70-71. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. 72-81. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that the identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 82. Rejected, subordinate. 83-85. Rejected, irrelevant. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. This proceeding is not a review of preliminary staff activity. The applicant must establish entitlement to the permit at the hearing. 86-87. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 91-94. Rejected, irrelevant, the discharge projections calculated by the TCWMD as explicated at the hearing are credited. In any event, the evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. 95-97. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. Petitioner Alva Cemetery Petitioner Alva Cemetery's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 4-5. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing, not a review of preliminary staff work. The evidence at hearing establishes that the permit modification will not cause additional adverse affect on existing receiving bodies. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that Hall Creek and Fichter Creek are receiving bodies of such capacity that their omission from staff report is material. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to be relevant. 11. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The Applicant's analysis is credited. As to T.O.C., even the less conservative T.O.C. projections indicate a peak discharge rate within that previously accepted by the District. 12-13. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Such return overflows are unnecessary in this situation where the detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 18-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21. Rejected, immaterial. There is no evidence that this permit modification application will cause additional adverse impact on receiving bodies. The failure to address nonexistent impacts is immaterial. Rejected, errors in staff report are irrelevant. The evidence admitted at hearing is accepted as correct. First paragraph is rejected, cumulative. Second paragraph is rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, anecdotal testimony is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence establishes that all farm fields affected by this permit modification application were in existence by the 1980 permit. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the cemetery flooding is related to actions by the TCWMD. Further, the evidence fails to establish that, even if the flooding was related to the TCWMD, the instant permit modification application will cause additional adverse impacts. Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 18. Rejected, subordinate. 19-20. Rejected, not credited and unnecessary. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent South Florida Water Management District Respondent South Florida Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 30. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Pages 17-19 of the Proposed Recommended Order set forth revisions to the staff report which originally form the basis for the preliminary agency action in this matter. As the hearing is a de novo review of this matter, it is unnecessary for this Recommended Order to address the revision of the staff report, which has limited probative value. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Melville G. Brinson, Esquire 1415 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Frank A. Pavese, Sr. Esquire 1833 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Scott Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 159 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John J. Fumero, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
