Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00254 seeks a consumptive use water permit for 1.08 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.16 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal from one well. This is a new use. The purpose of the consumptive use is a semi-enclosed irrigation system for the irrigation of tomatoes in south Hillsborough County. The water is to be taken from the Floridan Aquifer with some discharge off site. According to Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist for the district, there is some possibility that salt water intrusion may occur, but the district has never documented it in the subject area. The consumptive use will exceed the water crop as defined by the district because 25 percent of the water used will run off site and thus be lost. Except as otherwise stated above, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2),(3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: By January 1, 1978, applicant shall reduce runoff to 8.6 percent of the amount pumped, which reduction will bring the amount pumped within the water crop as defined by the district. That the applicant analyze the quality of the water at the beginning and end of each production season and that these analyses be submitted to the district. That the district be allowed to install flowmeters on any discharge canal and on the pump with proper notification of applicant and to enter on property to read the meters.
Recommendation Noting that, with the conditions requested by the Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff, issuance of the sought for permit appears consistent with the public interest, it is RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be issued pursuant to Application No. 75-00254 with the conditions set forth in paragraph 4. 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 Terry Elsberry Staff Attorney Elsberry Brothers, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Route 2, Box 70 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact In December, 1993, Suwannee Farms, through one of its partners, Robert Wight, applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a wastewater treatment facility permit to be constructed on part of its property in Suwannee County, Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection requested clarification or amendment of the initial application. Suwannee Farms amended its initial application and the Department determined that the applicant had provided reasonable assurances of compliance with Florida Statutes and the Department's rules and regulations. The permittee listed on the initial application is Robert Wight. Suwannee Farms is a partnership consisting of Robert Wight and Joseph Hall. The permit is to be issued in the name of Suwannee Farms. Issuance in the name of the partnership is within the scope of the Department of Environmental Protection's authority. On January 25, 1994, the Department issued its Intent to Issue the permit. The intent to issue provided in part: Pursuant to Section 403.815, F.S. and DER Rule 17-103-150, Florida Administrative Code, you (the applicant) are required to publish at your own expense the enclosed Notice of Intent to Issue Permit. The Notice shall be published one time only within 30 days, in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected. For the purpose of this rule, "publication in a news- paper of general circulation in the area affected" means publication in a newspaper meeting the requirements of Sections 50.011 and 50.031, F.S., in the county where the activity is to take place. Where there is more than one newspaper of general circulation in the county, the newspaper used must be one with significant circulation in the area that may be affected by the permit. If you are uncertain that a newspaper meets these require- ments, please contact the Department at the address or telephone number listed below. The applicant shall provide proof of publication to the Department, at Northeast District Office, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B-200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7577, within seven (7) days of the publication. Failure to publish the notice and provide proof of publication within the allotted time may result in the denial of the permit. The Notice Of Intent to Issue was published in the Gainesville Sun on February 5, 1994. Proof of publication was timely filed with the Department. The Gainesville Sun is a daily newspaper printed in Alachua County, Florida. The paper is available for purchase by the general public in Suwannee County, Florida and is sold to the general public at newspaper racks. Additionally, the Sun is available to residents of Suwannee County, including the area of the proposed project, through subscription and delivery via newspaper carrier "tubes." The Gainesville Sun is the only newspaper of general circulation delivered on a daily basis to homes in the area affected by the proposed permit. The Gainesville Sun contains national, state and local news stories, including local events in Suwannee County. Additionally, the Sun contains a legal ad section. The information in the Sun is of a public character and of interest and value to the residents of Suwannee County.dd The Sun has been published for more than a year in both Alachua and Suwannee Counties. At least twenty-five percent of the words in the Sun are in the English language and is entered as second class mail at the post office. There is no question that the Gainesville Sun meets the legal requirements of the Department for publication of Notices of Intent to Issue Permits in Suwannee County. Therefore, publication of the Intent to Issue Permit for the proposed wastewater facility involved in this case was appropriate. Through discovery and after an order compelling such answers, the Petitioner listed her objections to the issuance of the permit generally as noncompliance with nitrate level regulations, noncompliance with fencing regulations, noncompliance with set-back regulations and noncompliance with excessive noise and odor regulations. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the proposed wastewater treatment facility and land application meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and the Department's rules in the areas specified by the Petitioner as well as other areas of the statutes and rules. Suffice it to say that Petitioner offered no evidence which even remotely demonstrated that the Suwannee Farms permit did not meet these requirements or in some way failed to reasonably assure the Department that the requirements for a wastewater treatment permit with rapid rate land application would be met. Indeed, the only evidence in this case demonstrated that the technology proposed for the wastewater plant and rapid rate land application has been in use for a long time and has historically either met or exceeded the Department's requirements for nitrates (not to exceed 12 milligrams per liter), noise, odor and fecal coliform. There was no evidence submitted that would cause one to conclude that the technology for this facility would not perform as it has in the past at other locations. The plans of the facility clearly show adequate fencing and that the percolation ponds will be set-back at least 500 feet from any wells and at least 100 feet from any property line. Both fencing and pond location meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and Departmental rule. Given these facts, Petitioner has shown its entitlement to a construction permit for its proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order granting the application of Suwannee Farms for a wastewater treatment facility and rapid land application permit. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2800 1. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Bullock P. O. Box 447 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frederick L. Koberlein P. O. Drawer 2349 Lake City, FL 32056-2349 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for the quantities of water applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant, by Application No. 7500025, applied for a consumptive-use permit for an average daily withdrawal of 138,000 gallons of water from one (1) well penetrating the Florida Acquifer. This is an existing use. Exhibits were entered without objection, as follows: Original application with attachments, marked "Exhibit 1". Proof of Publication, marked "Exhibit 2". There were no written objections. The witness for permittee, George Szell, Hydrologist, was questioned at length by the staff attorney on issues to be resolved under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and particularly Rule 16J-2.11, Conditions for a Consumptive-Use Permit. A typed transcript of the testimony has been examined and made a part of the record for this hearing. The witness for the Board, Mr. Szell, objected to the granting of the permit on the grounds that the water crop was exceeded by 3.24 percent. Upon request of the Hearing Officer, the parties agreed to consider their differences and file a joint stipulation enumerating conditions upon which the parties agree. A joint stipulation signed by both parties was filed with the Division is marked "Supplement to the Record" and made a part of this recommended order. Mr. Szell recommended that the permit be granted consistent with the conditions in six (6) above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMENDED that the application of Jay Hall for a septic tank permit at Lot 1, Deerwood Estates, Baker County, Florida be DENIED. However, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in this cause to raise the height of the system to Department recommended specifications. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant, Craig Watson, has provided reasonable assurances in justification of the grant of an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit for a rotational grazing dairy to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the applicable rules and policies of the Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, it must be determined whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the industrial waste water facility at issue will comply with the Department's ground water quality standards and minimum criteria embodied in its rules and relevant policy, including draft permit conditions governing the proposed zone of discharge for the project. It must be determined whether the ground water beyond the proposed zone of discharge will be contaminated in excess of relevant state standards and criteria and whether the water quality of the G-II aquifer beneath the site will be degraded. Concomitantly it must be decided whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with the Department's effluent guidelines and policy for dairy operations as industrial waste water facilities, pursuant to the Department's policy enacted and implemented pursuant to its rules for granting and implementing industrial waste water facility permits, as they relate to dairy operations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Craig Watson has applied for an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit to authorize the construction and operation of an 850-cow, rotational grazing dairy, with accompanying dairy waste management system, to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida. The system would be characterized by ultimate spray application of waste effluent to pastures or "paddocks" located on a portion of the 511-acre farm owned by Mr. Watson. The rotational grazing method of dairy operation is designed to prevent the ground water quality violations frequently associated with traditional dairy operations. Traditional dairy operations are often characterized by intensive livestock use areas, which result in denuding of vegetation and consequent compacting of the soil, which prevents the effective plant root zone uptake method of treating dairy waste and waste water for prevention of ground water quality violations. Such intensive use areas are typically areas around central milking barns, central feeding and watering troughs, and other aspects of such operations which tend to concentrate cows in relatively small areas. The rotational grazing dairy attempts to avoid such problems by dividing a dairy farm's surface area into numerous pastures which cows can graze upon with constant and frequent rotation of cows between such pastures. This avoids overgrazing or denuding of the cover crop upon which cows graze, which is so necessary to proper treatment of wastes through root zone uptake. A rotational grazing dairy is designed to re-cycle cow manure for use as fertilizer to grow and re-grow the forage established on the site in the paddocks or pastures. The rotational grazing method is based on the theory that nutrients from cow manure can be captured in the root zone and uptaken as fertilizer for the plant upon which the cattle graze. The waste from the barn area is collected in a waste storage pond or lagoon and sprayed as liquid effluent on the grassy cover crops established in the various pastures, as is the sludge or more solid waste removed periodically from the waste storage lagoon. The applicant, the 511 acres and the project itself would use approximately 440 acres of that tract. The site is approximately 6 miles south of the Santa Fe River. The majority of the soil on the site consists of fine sand and clay-sand type soils. The dairy would contain approximately 850 cows. Lactating cows (cows being milked) would be grazed in some 36 pastures divided by fencing. They would be grazed in the pastures approximately 85 percent of the time and lactating cows would be in the milk and feed barn located in the center of the lactating cow pastures approximately 15 percent of the time. The manure from the barn, approximately 15 percent of the total animal waste, would be collected and placed in the collection lagoon for spray irrigation on the forage crops grown in the pastures. The remaining 85 percent of the waste would result from direct deposition on the pastures by the cows. The rotational grazing dairy would contain permanent watering troughs in each of the 36 pastures. This creates the possibility of numerous "high intensity areas" or areas characterized by a high level of cattle traffic. This circumstance can result in denuding the cover crop or grasses around such water trough areas which would result in a failure, for that area, of the root-zone-uptake means of waste treatment of nitrates. In order to minimize that eventuality, the cattle would be rotated on a frequent basis from paddock to paddock in an effort to maintain nitrate balance and maintain the sanctity of the cover crop, as would the option of employing movable watering troughs so that areas of denudment of the grass or forage cover can be avoided. Manure would be flushed from the milking and feeding barn with approximately 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of water after each milking and at the end of each shift. Wastewater would then flow into a sand trap or filter and thence through an underground pipeline into an 80 foot x 84 foot concrete-lined storage lagoon. The final site of the storage lagoon has not been firmly determined. The site proposed in the application is located in part over a depression which is a suspected karst feature or area that may be subject to sink hole formation. Therefore, consideration should be given locating the waste lagoon so as to avoid that depression and the permit should be conditioned on installation of the lagoon so as to avoid known karst features. Effluent from the storage lagoon would be applied to 245 acres of pasture with a movable spray gun. The settled sludge from the lagoon would be spread on the same land periodically. The primary grass crop on the site intended for cattle forage would be Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda grows through a large part of the year and is normally dormant, in the climate prevailing in the Gilchrist and Alachua County area, from mid-October until early March. There would thus be little nutrient uptake during that time but to off-set that dormant state rye, wheat, rye grass, sorghum and other small grains could be grown on the site during the winter months in order to continue the waste treatment function of the cover crops. MANAGEMENT PLAN The Department currently does not have in effect a specific rule requiring dairies in north Florida to obtain permits to construct and operate per se, although such a rule does prevail for dairies in the Okeechobee Basin in south Florida. Since 1990, however, the Department has, by policy, required permits for new dairy facilities in the Suwannee River Water Management District as industrial waste water facilities. This policy is derived from the general regulatory authority contained in Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62-670, Florida Administrative Code.1 The Department policy is described in a letter in evidence from the Department to applicant Watson containing the required conditions on any grant of the permit, to which the applicant has agreed. Those requirements are as follows: Management Plan A site-specific plan, with design calculations, providing for collection, storage and disposal of all wastewater from milking parlor and of runoff from the 25-year 24-hour storm event from all "high intensity" areas within the dairy farm. The calculations should include stormwater computer model SCS TR-55 or similar. Supporting documentation for the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Water budget and balance, detailed and itemized. Nutrient budget, including wastewater and solids management. Crop management plan with projected crop nutrient uptake rates. Herd management plan, including locations of barns, travel lanes, feed areas, pastures, and management of dry cows and heifers. Treatment and disposal system details, construction details and methods, pumping systems and capacities, irrigation system details, lagoon design and capacity, and site plans. Ground Water Monitoring Plan Determination of ground water depth, variability and direction(s) of flow. Topographic site plan which includes the location of facility property boundaries, sinkholes and cooling ponds. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) if located within Suwannee River Water Management District. Site borings for determination of soil properties, depth and extent of low permeability zones, and confirmation of GPR results. Proposed locations, construction, and development criteria for monitor wells. Inventory of potable wells within 1/2 mile of site. Determination of current ground water quality and compliance. Such plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of the USDA NRCS, at a minimum, and shall include detailed instructions for construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater/runoff collection, storage and disposal systems. DEP Exhibit 1. The various expert and fact witnesses for the Respondents described in their testimony the constituency of that Management Plan and the reasons, within their various scientific discipline areas and their personal factual knowledge concerning why it should be required for the site and project at issue. The 850-cow herd which would be contained on the proposed dairy consists of 550 lactating cows which are milked on a daily basis but also contains 80 dry cows and 220 heifers. Thus some 300 cattle on the dairy will not be milked at any given time and consequently will not contribute to use of the high intensity barn area and the waste collected in the anaerobic lagoon to the extent that those non-milking cattle are not fed and watered in the central barn area. Their waste would more typically be deposited directly on the pastures by those cattle themselves. 10 The project is proposed to provide for on-site containment of all wastes generated by the dairy. There will be no discharge of effluent or other pollutants from the dairy to "waters of the state." The proposed permit requires that no surface water runoff be permitted from the dairy site. The anaerobic or waste collection lagoon is designed to contain all effluent from the milking barn and other high intensity cattle areas in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm occurrence. Additionally, a safety factor of one-foot of "free-board" or additional wall height on the anaerobic lagoon is to be provided as an additional safety factor over and above the level expected to be achieved by the above-referenced storm event. The adequacy of the design capacity of the lagoon system is not in dispute. The proposed project and design calls for four monitoring wells to be located along the northern boundary of the property, which is essentially co-extensive with the boundary of the discharge zone at issue. There would be three compliance wells and one background sampling well. The Department's expert geologist, Mr. Davis, was of the belief that an intermediate monitoring well would not be necessary since the four wells would in his view be sufficient to enforce water quality standards. Those wells are located down-gradient according to the known direction of the ground water flow underneath the site, as required by Rule 62-522.600(6), Florida Administrative Code. Although no intermediate wells are provided for by the plan, they have been required at the other two rotational grazing dairies already permitted by the Department in the Suwannee River Water Management Region at least one of which was within a mile of the outstanding Florida water of the Suwannee River. Intermediate monitoring wells at other dairies have shown increased levels of nitrate, although there is no evidence to show that nitrate levels have exceeded state standards at the boundaries of those dairies or their discharge zones. In any event, however, the totality of the expert testimony demonstrates that intermediate wells would provide an efficacious early warning system to predict increases in nitrate contamination. Thus adjustments in the waste and commercial fertilizer nitrate application could be made so that prevention of violation of nitrate standards, by the time waste water migrated to compliance wells around the boundary of the site, could be effected. This would have a substantial predictive value to avoid future nitrate contaminant violations before they occur and they should be installed as a condition on permitting. The proposed dairy design and operation involving rotational grazing is undisputed to be more beneficial to environmental water quality considerations than a traditional cattle confinement type of dairy. The rotational grazing dairy is characterized by cattle spending minimal time in high intensity milking, feeding, and watering areas. Additionally, there will be a significantly lower level of nutrient loading on the pastures with little accumulation of effluent on the land surface. In fact, the deposition of waste through spray irrigation and through the urination and defecation of the cattle directly will still result in a deficit in nitrates needed for adequate plant growth of the grass, and other crop, ground cover necessary for feeding the cattle and making the operation succeed in a waste treatment sense as well. Consequently, it will have to be supplemented by the addition of some commercial fertilizer, the costs of which will result in a natural incentive for the farmer/applicant to ensure that the nutrient loading on the pastures is at a low, environmentally acceptable level in terms of potential contamination of ground water. The proposed dairy has been demonstrated to be consistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Services' requirements and policies concerning dairies and rotational grazing dairies. It is also undisputed that phosphorus is not of an environmental concern with this application and project. There is sufficient iron and aluminum coating on the soils involved so that excess phosphorus will be retained on the site and it is undisputed that nitrogen is the only limiting factor in the design of the dairy. NITROGEN BALANCE The specific concern with regard to the application and the dairy operation is nitrate leaching below the root zone of the crops grown on the surface of the dairy. The dairy is designed to use nitrogen and nitrates by growing crops in the pastures which will then be eaten by the dairy cows, so that the nitrogen is re-cycled with the resulting animal wastes being used as fertilizer for the same grass or crops which the cattle continuously graze. It is anticipated that the amount of nitrogen produced by the dairy cows will be insufficient to optimize that plant growth. Therefore, additional fertilizer will be required to be applied to the land surface in the pastures at times. The additional nitrogen fertilizer will only be applied when testing of soil, and particularly plant tissue analysis, which will be done a regular basis, shows that application of commercial fertilizer is needed to supplement the natural cattle-waste nitrogen. Nitrogen is a concern because if too much of it is applied to the land surface, it may leach below the plant root zone and eventually migrate to ground water. Nitrogen in high concentrations can be potentially harmful to human health, so state drinking water standards have been established for nitrogen with regard to the issuance of industrial waste water permits. The state drinking water standard for nitrate is ten parts per million at the zone of discharge, that is, the zone of discharge into the ground water aquifer. The dairy is designed in such a way that nitrate levels will not exceed water quality standards. The design is determined by reviewing nitrogen balances and making sure that excess nitrogen will not leach past the root zone. The engineers evaluating and designing the project for the applicant, and testifying concerning it, arrived at a "mass balance" to estimate the nitrogen amounts on the site. This mass balancing is required by the Department in the required estimating of the pounds of nitrate leachate. Nitrogen can be removed from the dairy operating system through atmospheric losses or "volatilization" particularly from the urine component of nitrogen application. It can be removed through milk losses, whereby nitrogen is removed from the digestive system of the cattle through its being bound up to some extent in the milk produced by the cattle and sold off the dairy site, as well as some minimal leaching of nitrate through the soil. The nitrogen that is not removed by volatilization to the atmosphere (excluding the small amount re-deposited by rainfall) will be cycled through the cows and the crops along with any supplemental nitrogen applied from time to time in order ensure optimal plant growth. The mass balance, or amount of pounds of nitrate in the leachate, was determined by considering the amount of water flowing through the system. The re-charge rate was established by the applicant's engineer Mr. Holloway to be 17 inches. This means that there will be 17 inches of rainfall leaching below the root zone of the cover crops to reach ground water. The re-charge rate can be determined by computing the average of the evapo-transpiration and average rainfall and subtracting the difference. It can also be calculated by employing computer models such as the "GLEAMS" model. Mr. Holloway, the applicants engineer, used both sources or methods and reached the figure 17 inches. The GLEAMS model is a computer model that uses local data to determine water budgeting and recharge rates. Mr. Holloway also used a 50 percent volatilization rate for the nitrate losses when determining his mass balance. The applicant's experts also considered the plant uptake rates and concluded that the uptake rate would be between 500 and 700 pounds of nitrogen uptaken per year, per acre, by the plant cover. In order to be conservative and to install a sufficient safety factor in the system to avoid overloading it with nitrates and endangering ground water quality, they employed a lower uptake rate in their calculations and recommendations to the applicant, and thus to the Department, as to the amount of nitrogen applied per acre, per year, from all sources to only be 400 pounds. The conditions imposed by the Department in the "free-form" consideration process and draft permit thus limits the total pounds of nitrogen permissibly applied to this site to 400 pounds per acre, per year. Those 400 pounds of nitrogen are represented by 260 pounds applied from manure from the livestock and no more than 140 pounds applied from commercial fertilizers purchased by the farmer, Mr. Watson. The 400 pounds of nitrogen per acre, per year, as a condition on the permit is less than that allowed at the other rotational grazing dairies previously designed by Mr. Holloway and approved. Additionally, Mr. Cordova of the Department established that there are no rotational grazing dairies that have a higher nitrogen deficit than the Watson dairy. This further provides a significant safety factor not present in other approved dairies. Atmospheric losses of nitrogen up to 80 percent have been documented with similar dairy operations. Atmospheric losses can occur through both volatilization and de-nitrification. Volatilization is the process where nitrogen is removed from the system by the ammonia in the waste products, changing into a gaseous state and migrating into the atmosphere as a volatile gas. De-nitrification is the process where microbes, principally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) reduce nitrates to nitrogen gas and to possibly N2O, which is a volatile, and then allow it to escape into the atmosphere. The applicant has agreed, as a condition to the permit, to apply soil testing and crop tissue analysis as well as quarterly reviewing of the monitoring wells before he determines to supplement the natural fertilizer deposited from the animals with additional commercially purchased fertilizer. The commercially purchased fertilizer would represent a substantial investment in purchase costs and in labor costs for its application. This is an additional safety factor because the applicant clearly would not have an interest in applying any more fertilizer than was absolutely needed to secure optimum plant growth for grazing purposes and nitrogen uptake or waste treatment purposes. This is a further method which will prevent excessive nitrate nutrients from being deposited on the site and possibly into the ground water. Dr. Bottcher, an expert witness for the applicant, testified that he expected nitrate levels at the zone of discharge within the boundaries and beneath the surface of the dairy farm to be between 4 and 6 parts per million. Mr. Holloway expected within a reasonable degree of certainty that on a long term average, with about 4,000 pounds of nitrate leaching below the root zone system, that the concentration directly below the farm beneath the root zone would be between 2 and 3 parts per million. Indeed, the proposed operation would be similar to the existing condition at the Watson farm involving grazing beef cattle on a system of pastures, with row crop operations. Row crops typically have a higher impact of nitrates than the proposed dairy operation would have and beef cow grazing would have a similar impact, although it would be slightly less. Thus the proposed operation is similar in its nitrate impact to the existing conditions at the site. Moreover, the applicant is limited by the permit conditions already agreed to, to spray manure on the spray field area at the rate of less than one half of an inch. The spraying to that limitation would probably take from two to five hours per week. One of the important safety mechanisms in achieving a nutrient balance on the dairy site and in its operation, so as to ensure that ground water quality violations do not occur, is the application rate of nitrate to the land surface. As shown by Dr. Bottcher's testimony, the farmer may increase crop production by applying more fertilizer during seasons of heavy growth of the plant cover. The application rate can then be decreased when there is less growth and, therefore, less need for nutrients to grow the cover crops. A smaller application rate will increase the volatilization rate by avoidance of the infiltration of the nitrate bearing effluent into the soil through hydraulic action and through the saturation mechanism, since a smaller amount of application would tend to leave more of the effluent within less than one inch of the land surface, or on the land surface, thereby allowing it to be volatilized more readily. This circumstance will decrease the amount of nutrient leaching below the root zone and thus prevent the nitrates from being transmitted to the ground water. A number of crops can be grown successfully and appropriately on the site in order to provide the grazing forage needed for the operation of the dairy. Examples, depending upon the season of the year, are rye, wheat, grain sorghum, and various grasses, including Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda is a perennial grass, high in protein available for livestock and is already established on the site. The various other crops can be grown as well and some that grow in the winter months, such as rye, will be grown by Mr. Watson. The growing of the various cover forage crops are limited by the limitation in the permit which is conditioned on maintaining a cover crop growth situation where the average annual uptake is at least 400 pounds per acre (the evidence reveals that in reality it would be more on the order of 500 to 700 pounds per acre, per year). Dr. Pollman and Dr. Upchurch, expert witnesses for the Petitioners, question the nitrogen balancing and leachate predictions arrived at by the applicant's expert witnesses, as well as those of the Department. Neither Drs. Pollman nor Upchurch had any prior experience or expertise with testing for a nitrogen balancing on rotational grazing dairies. Instead they utilized various models to attempt to predict leachate amounts. Dr. Pollman's modeling utilized formulas prepared by the applicant's experts. His modeling showed a high percentage of the predicted outcomes to be actually within regulatory standards for nitrates, even though all of his estimates failed to take into account the variable inclusion or application rate for nitrogen through commercial fertilizer which will only be applied on an as needed basis after appropriate plant tissue and soil tests show that commercial fertilizer should be applied. Likewise, Dr. Upchurch's modeling results were also mostly within acceptable standards for nitrate concentrations unless one assumes that the nitrogen application rates exceed the amounts allowed under the permit, which will not be the case in reality because obviously the permit limits must be complied with. Dr. Upchurch also utilized a model, "NLEAP," which was neither designed nor calibrated to be used for predictive capabilities and is still considered experimental by the NRCS. WASTE LAGOON The applicant proposes to construct a waste storage lagoon designed to hold seven days' waste water generation capacity or 26,000 gallons per day. In addition to that required storage for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, an additional safety factor of one foot of free board has been designed into the lagoon system. The lagoon will be constructed with 6 inch thick, fiber-reinforced concrete. No evidence was offered by the Petitioners that the lagoon design itself was faulty or inappropriate, rather the Petitioners contend that there is a chance that a surface failure beneath the lagoon, by the result of a sink hole developing, particularly in the present preliminary location proposed for the lagoon, could cause the lagoon to crack. The applicant will, however, in order to ensure that the area is suitable for the lagoon have the appropriate engineer "over-excavate" the site in order to minimize the change of a sink hole developing. Additionally, soil borings will be done beneath the surface to provide additional assurance that the lagoon will not fail due to voids or sink holes being present beneath it. Because the lagoon is presently preliminarily located in an area that appears to embody an old, inactive karst depression, consideration should be given to altering the site of the lagoon slightly so as to avoid this area, after soil borings and other investigation is done to ascertain whether the area poses a risk of lagoon failure. Additionally it must be pointed out that because the applicant would need to expend a substantial investment to rebuild the lagoon in the event of such a failure, he has a strong incentive to locate the most suitable geological placement for the lagoon in any event. GEOLOGIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS It is undisputed that the geology underlying the surface of the dairy site is karst in nature: that is, it is characterized by a sub-strate of limestone which can, through the dissolution process caused by percolating water, be susceptible to fissures, voids, underground conduits and sink holes. This, however, is true for essentially all areas used for agriculture in the Suwannee River Area Water Management District, the area to which the subject above- referenced policy concerning installation and permitting of dairies applies. Because of the karst nature of the area, sink holes and other potential surface openings to the ground water could occur at the site. It is most significant, however, that both Mr. Holloway's and Dr. Kwader's testimony established that the soil layer at the site was more than sufficient to protect the ground water. In fact, the soil layer averages from 45 to 50-feet thick over the underlying limestone sub-strate of the Ocala Formation. Further, the proposed permit and its conditions would require a management plan which, with the conditions already placed on the permit and recommended herein, will adequately deal with the possibility of sink holes, "pipes" or "chimneys" developing on the site. The dairy design success is derived essentially from the sufficient nutrient uptake in the root zone of the plant cover, balanced with careful control of the application rates of both the natural fertilizer from the cows and the commercial fertilizer which will supplement it from time to time. Any possibility that the treatment zone for nitrates associated with the plant root zone would be by-passed by the effluent as a result of sink holes or other types of fissures developing can be resolved by proper management practices, which the conditions proposed for the permit and those recommended herein will insure are implemented. For instance, if sink holes, other depressions or holes develop in the site, they will be filled with soil to a depth of five feet, with an impervious clay cap on top of that and then a layer of top soil to allow for re-establishment of the root zone on the surface. The permit should be so conditioned. Moreover, if sink holes or other voids develop that are too large to be so filled and pose a risk of migration of effluent below the root zone to rapidly to the ground water, they will be fenced off and cows will not be allowed in the area. The area will be removed from the irrigation application process until repairs are made, under the presently proposed conditions on the permit. An additional condition should be imposed whereby any sink holes or other voids or similar breaks in the ground surface which pose a risk of effluent rapidly migrating to ground water should be bermed around the circumference to prevent effluent or stormwater laden with nitrates from the land surface from entering the fault or cavity. The applicant is required under the proposed conditions on the permit to report to DEP any sink holes which develop within a certain period of time in the barn area. Cows are not to be permitted to enter into any of the sink hole areas by additional fencing, if necessary. If sink holes develop in the spray field there can be no discharges of fertilizer or irrigation on those areas until the sink holes have been repaired in the manner referenced above. The phosphate pits on the site will also be fenced to prevent discharges past the root zone potentially caused by cattle entering the pits. Additionally, berms are required to be constructed around the phosphate pits to prevent surface water from storm events or other means by which nitrates from the ground surface can be transported into the pits and then possibly to ground water. Any holes which may develop, also called "piping failures," around the periphery of the phosphate pits should be treated in a similar manner to prevent the migration of surface water into those holes whether or not they communicate with the phosphate pits themselves by fencing and berming. These arrangements coupled with the fact that the phosphate pits are characterized by a sufficient soil layer in the bottom of the pits between the bottom surface of the pits and the water table or aquifer will constitute reasonable assurance that the pits will not result in a conduit or path for nitrate-laden, surface water to migrate past the root zone directly into the ground water aquifer. Mr. Holloway, an engineer, testifying for the applicant conducted soil borings on the site to verify the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) surveys as accurate and to ensure that an adequate root zone for treatment purposes existed. Additionally, the NRCS did a ground penetrating radar survey or study on the property. The Petitioners also did a separate ground penetrating radar study performed by Mr. Windschauer. The Petitioners study identified a number of karst-type "anomalies" on the property. The number of anomalies located by Windschauer was not unusual for a such a karst geologic area, but, in any event, all of them had adequate soil depth to support the crops necessary to establish the root zone and maintain the nitrogen balancing. Soil borings were conducted, as well on four of the anomalies, under Dr. Upchurch's supervision. They confirmed that there was adequate soil depth to support crops and protect groundwater. The conditions already imposed on the permit to which the applicant has agreed, require a minimum of five feet of soil depth to ensure adequate treatment including the soil below the root zone and that soil depth and plant cover will have to be maintained even if repairs are necessary to karst anomalies or "sink holes," or the dairy will have to cease operation. The soil depth on the dairy is approximately 45-50 feet and the water table is approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. While the Department's expert, Mr. Davis, is satisfied that the location of the monitoring wells and the number of wells are adequate to monitor compliance with water quality standards for groundwater at the site, the draft permit conditions allow for a change in the number and the location of the monitoring wells. The evidence in the case, including that which shows that an intermediate well at another similar dairy site has shown elevated nitrate levels (although it has not been shown that other conditions are similar to those proposed in this permit application and in the evidence) would indicate that it would be prudent to install intermediate monitoring wells, upgradient, within the dairy site to serve as an early warning, predictive mechanism to avoid water quality violations at the boundary of the zone of discharge. This will allow time for steps to be taken, through various adjustments in the operation, to prevent any violations of the ten parts per million nitrate groundwater standard. The permit is recommended to be so conditioned. Dr. Kwader performed a photolinear trace analysis. He indicated that he did not find any particular linear features such as fractures. A fracture in the limestone stratum is significant in that it can provide a conduit or preferential pathway through the sub-surface rock and thus transfer contaminants from one point to another at a more rapid rate than simple percolation through soil and pores in the rocks. This could result in excessive nitrates being deposited in the groundwater aquifer before an adequate treatment time and mechanism has had its effect on the nitrates. A fracture or conduit flow will, however, cause dilution and Mr. Davis, for the Department, testified that he did not expect a higher concentration of nutrients in a fracture than in the surrounding rock. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution once the nutrients reach the aquifer and begin moving laterally. The dilution will be proportional to the water moving through the conduit, meaning that if the fracture is relatively large, then the concentration of nutrients will be proportionately smaller because of the higher volume of water. Such linear features or fractures are difficult to observe through 50 or more feet of soil existing at the site above the rock stratum and the top surface of the aquifer. Dr. Upchurch, for the Petitioners, also performed a photolinear trace analysis and identified two areas as being highly probable, in his belief, for linear fracture features beneath the farm and surrounding area. He believes there is a possibility of a number of other fractures beneath the Watson property, although the evidence does not definitely identify such nor the measures or precise locations of any such postulated fractures. The Watson property, however, is not unlike any of the surrounding karst terrain with respect to such potential linear fracture features and, in fact, much of north Florida can be so characterized. Moreover, Dr. Upchurch himself agreed that only a limited area of the Watson farm would be impacted by such features, and further, if they are present, they will not impact the nutrient balance aspect of the dairy design because it will perform above many feet of soils separating it from the fractures, if they exist. Limestone pinnacles protruding to the land surface can provide preferential pathways for water to migrate downward to the groundwater aquifer in a manner similar to that posed by a sink hole. They can also function as a break in the soil and plant root zone covering the spray effluent treatment area if allowed to remain exposed. Limestone was observed within one of the mine pits and in a sink hole. It is not clear whether it is a pinnacle which leads down to the sub-strate containing the aquifer or is merely a remnant boulder. In any event, these pinnacles or limestone outcroppings or boulders, whatever they prove to be, will not result in a preferential pathway for water to migrate to the aquifer because the management plan conditioning the permit requires that any limestone protruding to the surface be sheared off and replaced with top soil and vegetation. The permit conditions require that at least five feet of soil overlaid by vegetation must be present for all areas in the spray field. No exposed groundwater was observed in any of the sink holes. In fact the aquifer water level would be at least ten to twenty feet below the bottom of any pit or sink hole observed on the property. An additional 50-foot buffer from the property boundary surrounds all of the paddocks, providing an additional safety factor before the outside boundary of the zone of discharge is reached. The proposed dairy is located approximately six miles south of the Sante Fe River at its nearest point. The Sante Fe River is an outstanding Florida waterway in accordance with Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)27, Florida Administrative Code. The dairy site is not within the flood plain of the river and there will be no surface water discharged from the dairy, including none to the Sante Fe River. Any impact the dairy might have on a water quality in the Sante Fe River would come from groundwater flowing from the site to river. Groundwater beneath the dairy site flows first in a northeasterly direction thence apparently swinging more northerly in the direction of the river, more or less in a "banana shape" flow pattern and direction. Current permitting requirements for such a dairy require that the groundwater leaving or flowing from the zone of discharge must meet "drinking water standards." Those standards are codified in Rules 62-520.400 and 62-522.400, Florida Administrative Code. Those standards require that nitrates not exceed the standard or level of ten parts per million. Dr. Bottcher's expert opinion, which is accepted, is that the dairy design and operation will provide adequate protection to the Sante Fe River with that perameter in mind. He also established that reasonable assurances exist that the river will be adequately protected and not significantly be degraded alone or in combination with other stationary installations in addition to the dairy in question. The dairy waste management system has been established by preponderant evidence to abate and prevent pollution of the groundwater to the extent required by the applicable statutes, rules and policies, in that water or pollution will not be discharged from the dairy in violation of the above-referenced standard. Especially because of the great thickness of soil cover and because of the conditions and protective measures designed into the draft permit, and the project and recommended as conditions herein, in order to prevent effluent from bypassing the root zone treatment area due to karst features the preponderant, credible geological and hydro- geological evidence, including that of Mr. Davis, shows, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that there are not conditions concerning the hydro-geology or geology in the area of the site as to make it unsuitable for the proposed dairy operation in the manner conditioned and recommended herein. SECTION 120.57(1)(E) - FINDINGS The specific permitting requirements for the rotational grazing dairy at issue are embodied in a policy followed by the Department as far back as 1990. Those requirements are not contained in a Department rule. Rather, the policy is presumably enacted pursuant to the statute referenced by the parties, including the Department, in this case as the general pollution abatement statute, Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. The action of the Department in announcing its intent to grant the permit may be deemed an agency action "that determines the substantial interest of a party and that it is based on an un-adopted rule . . ." to the extent that one might deem this policy, consistently followed in a substantial area of the state since 1990, an un-adopted rule for purposes of Section 120.57(e)(1), Florida Statutes. In that context, the agency must demonstrate that the un-adopted rule comports with the statutory definitional of characteristics of a valid rule. Thus the agency must present proof that its un-adopted rule or "policy" would be valid as a rule. In that context the evidence adduced by the Department and indeed by both Respondents, since they presented a joint case, shows that the policy at issue is within the powers, functions and duties delegated by the legislature in Section 403.087,Florida Statutes, which is a generalized grant of authority designed to give the Department the power to regulate in a way to abate the pollution of waters of the state, including groundwater. It has also been adequately shown that the policy or un- adopted rule does not enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of that law being implemented but rather provides sufficient regulatory details so that the general principals, stated in that statute, can be carried out in terms of the installation, regulation and operation of the subject dairy project. It has been adequately proven that the rule is not vague and that it establishes adequate standards for agency decisions on whether or not to permit such a rotational grazing dairy. It does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency nor constitute an arbitrary or capricious act or policy imposition, because the standards and requirements advanced by the Department as being necessary under this policy or un-adopted rule, for a permit to be granted, must, of legal and factual necessity, be predicated on competent, scientific expert and factual evidence. That has been shown, which likewise meets the requirement that the un-adopted rule be supported by competent and substantial evidence. Likewise, the evidence shows that under the circumstances, given the great public necessity in protection of the groundwater and the Floridian aquifer, that the requirements placed upon a grant of a permit for this project and the conditions placed upon its construction and operation do not impose, under the circumstances, excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, Mr. Watson, or the governmental entity where the project is located, in other words, Gilchrist County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered granting the permit requested by Craig Watson to construct and operate the proposed dairy waste management system in accordance with the draft permit proposed by the Department, including the general and specific conditions attached and incorporated therein and also including the general and specific conditions recommended to be adopted and implemented for the proposed system in this Recommended Order, based upon the preponderant, persuasive, credible evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of February, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent is guilty of conduct which violates certain provisions of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA) policy manual amounting to conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee; theft; and violation of ECUA rules or policies concerning outside employment, by allegedly securing outside employment without completing a proper form and receiving advance approval for such outside employment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (formerly Escambia County Utilities Authority) is an Agency of local government established pursuant to an enabling act of the Florida Legislature at Chapter 81-376 Laws of Florida, as amended. It is a Regional Water Supply Authority for purposes of Sections 163.01 and 373.1962, Florida Statutes (2006). It is thus given authority to supply utility services to persons and businesses residing in a defined area in Escambia County, Florida, including the provision of water utility service. It is authorized in that Act to employ personnel to secure the provision of such utility services and to regulate the conditions and terms of their employment, their retention, their hiring, and their termination, as well as other forms of employee discipline. It has provided for such regulation of its personnel through the adoption of a "Human Resources Policy Manual" (Manual). That Manual was adopted in accordance with Part 3, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at times pertinent hereto, was a utility service technician employed by the ECUA. During his tenure with the ECUA he worked for a number of different supervisors and essentially every district of the ECUA's service area. On April 1, 2006, the Respondent, John Crosby and his wife Patricia Crosby, took title by deed to residential property at 319 West Clay Street, in Pensacola, Florida. They begin renovating that house located at that address for use as a residence. Sometime during the next several months, either because work was being performed on the plumbing or because of inability to pay the water bill, the Respondent had the water service temporarily stopped. The account remained open, however, and was not closed or inactivated on the records of the ECUA. There was an amount billed and outstanding which was unpaid. On or about November 28, 2006, due to the unpaid water bill becoming significantly delinquent, a "cut-off order" to stop water service to the address at 319 West Clay Street was issued and an employee of the ECUA, Donald George, was sent to that address to cut-off the water service. When Mr. George went to 319 West Clay Street and opened the meter box, he saw a "straight pipe" device installed in the meter box and connected to the water line from the street to the house. This straight pipe, thus connected, had the effect of bypassing the water meter so that any water used at that address or residence would not be registered on the water meter and, therefore, it would be impossible to bill for that water. Mr. George called his supervisor, Joe Creary, and asked for instructions concerning this situation. Mr. Creary ordered him to remove the water meter and leave the premises. The next day he was sent back to those premises to turn the water off and to take the straight pipe out of the water line and utility box. He did so and gave the straight pipe device to Mr. Creary. Joel Roberts does Risk Management investigations, as well as performing as a work place Safety and Training Specialist for the ECUA. He received a report regarding the use of the straight pipe at 319 West Clay Street from Mr. Creary. He went to that address and observed the straight pipe installed in the water meter box in the water line to the house at that address and took pictures of it and the residence. He prepared an incident report and then made an investigation to establish who the last customer of record was. The last customer of record was the Respondent, John Crosby, who was still a customer of record on November 28, 2006, when the straight pipe was discovered. The photos of the straight pipe installed were taken November 29, 2006, before it was removed by Mr. George. The Respondent acknowledged that he had a straight pipe device in his possession. He kept it in his personal tool box. He maintained that he used it for making emergency service calls in the area near his home, using his own personal vehicle. He stated during the course of the investigation that he did not know how his straight pipe device became installed at the meter box at the subject property. He speculated that someone was trying to cast him in a bad light or playing a joke possibly, but he did not know who could have done it. During the investigatory phase of this proceeding, he acknowledged that the straight pipe device was his own. Later, he changed his story, to the effect that although he possessed a straight pipe device kept in his personal tool box, that the one placed in the meter box on his water line was not the same one. He maintained that later contention through his testimony at hearing. Several of the ECUA regional supervisors testified, essentially all of whom who had previously supervised the Respondent. Uniformly they established that there was no policy which permitted employees, such as the Respondent, to use their personal vehicles to make service calls after regular working hours or otherwise. They also established that there was no policy which allowed employees to keep or maintain company equipment in their personal possession away from the employment premises of the ECUA as, for instance, a straight pipe device such as the Respondent had possessed at times pertinent to this proceeding. During a February 9th, 2007, hearing conducted by the Petitioner, the Respondent denied placing the straight pipe in the meter box and denied knowledge of who may have done so. He did admit that the straight pipe was property of ECUA which he had previously used in the performance of official duties after hours when responding to "dirty water complaints." He admitted that the straight pipe, ECUA property, had been kept in his personal tool box, but later he changed his story to say that the straight pipe in the meter box was not his own because he had since found his own straight pipe device in another tool box. The fact remains, however, that the Respondent has had difficulty in his ability to keep his water service account current for the above address, and there is a delinquent outstanding balance on that account. The Respondent was the only person who could have benefited from installing the straight pipe in place of his water meter in order to obtain water free of charge, which he did. While it is possible that another person installed the straight pipe in place of the Respondent's water meter and that the testimony of the Respondent's fellow employees is untruthful, the preponderant, persuasive evidence reflects that the Respondent had the greatest motive and the best opportunity to install the straight pipe device and to thus wrongfully obtain free water service at his property. His explanations of how the straight pipe device might have been theoretically placed by some unidentified third party is self-serving testimony. It is testimony which defies logic and which is out- weighed by that of his co-workers to the contrary. The Respondent's testimony in these particulars is thus discounted and not accepted because of insufficient credibility. It has thus been established by preponderant, persuasive evidence that the Respondent is the party who installed the straight pipe device in the water meter box at the property at 319 West Clay Street, Pensacola, Florida, in order to divert un-metered water to the use of persons at that property which belonged to the ECUA. Such water has not been paid for in accordance with the approved rate structure of the ECUA for metered water. The testimony of Tina Shelton establishes that the Petitioner has adopted a code of ethics and a body of personal rules and regulations. These are incorporated in its Human Resources Policy Manual. She established that the current Manual is supplied to all employees; and also established, through Petitioner's Exhibit 11 and her testimony, that the Respondent received the Manual on July 20, 1999. She also established that the Respondent's outside employment with Tom Thumbs Stores, Inc., has not been the subject of any approval form submitted by the Respondent. She established that outside employment had not been approved by the Petitioner and that therefore the Respondent has violated Section A-9(5), of the referenced manual concerning outside employment.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 75-00196 is a request by the Standard Sand and Silica Company, for a consumptive water use permit. This application is for an existing use involving withdrawal from one well. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 1.6925 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 2.16 million gallons per day. The sought-for withdrawal will not exceed the water crop as defined by the district, with the withdrawal consumptively using only 35 percent of the water crop. The water will be used on site for the washing of sand. Mr. Clifton W. Golden is an adjacent landowner who testified that he was afraid of salt water intrusion and that a sink hole might develop because of the vast quantities of water taken from the aquifer by the applicant. He does not feel that the issuance of a permit would be consistent with the public interest. He presented no hydrological data showing that issuance of the permit would adversely affect his property. Mary Fausteen Thompson is a property owner adjacent to the site from which the water will be taken. She has had problems in the past with Standard Sand and Silica Company apparently discharging excess water on to her property. She thinks those problems may be occurring again, causing some of her property to be flooded. The sought-for consumptive use will not significantly induce salt water intrusion. Except as otherwise noted in the findings of fact, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. Several letters of objections have been received in addition to the objectors noted above. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That no off-site runoff be permitted by the applicant. That flowmeters be placed on the well and quarterly reports made to the district.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 75-00196 be granted with the conditions set forth in paragraph 7 above. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Eugene W. Harris Standard Sand and Silica Co. P.O. Box 35 Davenport, Florida 33837 Mrs. Mary Fausteen Thompson Box 82-C, Evans Road Polk City, Florida Mr. Clifton W. Golden 800 Oriole Drive Virginia Beach, Florida 23451 Mr. John C. Jones Executive Director Florida Wildlife Federation 4080 North Haverhill Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with regulating waste water treatment facilities and any sanitary nuisance which may emanate as a result of such operations pursuant to Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Larry G. Delucenay d/b/a Madhatter Utilities, Inc., owns and operates the Foxwood Waste Water Treatment Plant which is permitted and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent, in operating the Foxwood system, discharges its treated effluent water by means of two percolation ponds and a drip field located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision in Pasco County, Florida. Respondent owns and controls percolation ponds which are located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision and pumps human waste from a sewage treatment plant to percolation ponds in the Cypress Cove Subdivision. Respondent's percolation ponds are located approximately 50 ft. west of several residences and the ponds are accessible to the public. The ponds are elevated from 3 ft. to 5 ft. above the adjacent residential lots in the subdivision. However, there is a sand berm approximately 8 ft. high with a 12 yd. base which serves as a barrier between the percolation ponds and the Cypress Cove residences. On August 5, 1991, environmental health specialist Burke observed liquid flowing through the sand berm. He also observed erosion patterns in the sand on the berm which indicated liquid was flowing through it. Mr. Burke, while in the company of two other employees of Petitioner, observed liquid flowing from the percolation ponds onto Lake Floyd Drive to the south of the ponds. An improperly designed nearby lake exacerbated the flooding into Lake Floyd Drive. Respondent's waste water treatment system is designed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Pasco County allowed a number of developments to be built in the area without an adequate drainage system which adversely impacts Respondent's system to the point whereby untreated drainage outfall is draining into the southeast areas in Cypress Cove. Specifically, Respondent's pond #4 is designed to handle a water level up to 67.33 ft. During the investigation of the case, the water level in that pond was approximately 3 1/2 ft. higher than the designed capacity and was therefore causing overflow into the southeast areas of the development. (Respondent's Exhibits A, B and C.) Noteworthy also was the fact that a developer failed to complete a connection which has impacted Respondent's percolation pond and has forced the water to rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the designed capacity which has resulted in an overflow approximately 3 ft. to 4 ft. into the neighboring subdivision. As a result of the overflow, waste water spills over the percolation ponds and prevents the water from draining through the berms as designed. Petitioner's consulting engineer, Robert William Griffiths, credibly testified that a number of agencies having oversight responsibility such as Pasco County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation, mandated that the drainage system be completed prior to the entire build-up of Cypress Cove. Despite the mandate, the drainage system was not completed and the County allowed the development to continue. Respondent is properly treating and chlorinating sewage in its plant which complies with Petitioner's requirements for the treatment of sewage in systems designed such as Respondent's. Respondent properly treats sewage flowing through its ponds and its berms are properly maintained. As early as October 1989, Respondent consulted and retained an engineer, Gerald E. Towson, who was commissioned to investigate the specifics of designing a waste water treatment plant based on concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). As a result of that charge, Towson investigated the area and observed flooding and the stormwater runoff in the Cypress Cove neighborhood and attempted to find a solution to alleviate the problem. Consultant Towson also investigated Respondent's treatment plant to determine if the system was functioning as designed. Based on his observation and inspection of the treatment facility, the facility was operating as it was designed and properly filters and treats the effluent. However, based on Respondent's inability to control the stormwater runoff in the neighborhood created by the excess buildup, Towson concluded that there was no workable solution to the problem. As a result of Towson's inability to find a workable solution to handle the concerns raised by DER, Respondent suggested that Towson locate another wastewater treatment site which he found in a surrounding area. Respondent negotiated a lease arrangement with the landowner and initiated the permit process with DER. After the completion of numerous documents and engineering studies required by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Respondent was able to get the leased site permitted by DER as a slow drip irrigation system during March 1991. However, while construction of the system was scheduled to start during March 1991, as a result of vigorous protests from area neighbors, construction was delayed. Respondent thereafter investigated several sites but was unable to fine a suitable area near Cypress Cove. Towson completed a lengthy and cumbersome process in getting Respondent's construction application processed by DER. Initially the application was filed and following a DER review, a Notice of Intent to Issue was given. Hillsborough County thereafter reviewed the project and following their review, Hillsborough County issued its Notice of Intent to Grant and public notice was given. Based on Respondent's inability to comply with the neighbor's concerns regarding setback problems, DER withdrew its permit during May of 1991. Thereafter, Petitioner became involved in connecting with the Pasco County Public System. That connection was ultimately made and the County gave its approval following a delay based on a review occasioned by an employee who had been on vacation. Upon getting the approval, Petitioner ordered the equipment from a supplier which included installation of a magnetic meter and the necessary hookups into the Pasco County System. A "phased in" connection has been completed and the stormwater runoff problem has been abated. When the problems raised by DER and ultimately Petitioner was first brought to Respondent's attention, Pasco County did not have the capacity to handle the hookups required by Respondent's system. Respondent, has been involved in the installation of waste water treatment plants since 1967. Respondent is qualified as a Class "A" Licensee Waste Water Operator. He has been accepted as an expert in numerous administrative hearings. Respondent purchased the Foxwood System during 1982. Respondent utilized a 13 acre tract near Lake Floyd Drive. The system was licensed and designed with a flow capacity of 300,000 plus gallons per day. During the time when the Administrative Complaint was issued, the flow capacity was 220,000 gallons per day. The storm water system which was to have been completed by developers in the area was not connected to the public system and the County granted numerous other permits to daycare centers and several parking lots were constructed for other newly constructed commercial buildings in the area. As a result of the excess runoff created by the development in the area, Respondent's system was impacted and the water level was raised in the percolation ponds to the point whereby an overflow resulted. Petitioner adduced no evidence which showed that any physical or emotional harm resulted from the runoff. At all times while the concerns were being raised by Petitioner and other oversite agencies, the effluents in Respondent's systems were properly treated. Respondent vigorously attempted to abate the runoff created by the excess buildup in the area despite the fact that the problem was raised by Pasco County and over which Respondent had no control. Throughout the process of attempting to find alternate solutions and ultimately getting permitting approval to start construction of an alternative waste water treatment system, Respondent operated in good faith. When no alternate site became available, Respondent initially made application to connect with Pasco County System and that connection has now been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: THOMAS W CAUFMAN ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 11351 ULMERTON RD - STE 407 LARGO FL 34648 RANDALL C GRANTHAM ESQ COTTERILL GONZALEZ & GRANTHAM 1519 N MABRY - STE 100 LUTZ FL 33549 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
