Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1991, the Petitioner, Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association, Inc. (Cahill), filed a permit application with the Department of Environmental Resources, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to remove two earthen plugs in the Cahill canal system, located in Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The plugs were to be removed to a depth of -5.5 feet N.G.V.D. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrologist employed by the Department, had performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project and reduced his findings to writing in a memorandum dated June 25, 1993. Mr. Echternacht recommended that the project not be permitted. On August 20, 1993, the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny Cahill's application to remove the plugs. The notice included six proposed changes to the project which would make the project permittable. Cahill requested an administrative hearing on the Department's intent to deny the permit. On March 3 and 4, 1994, an administrative hearing was held on the issue of whether a permit should be issued. The hearing officer entered a recommended order on May 9, 1994, recommending that a final order be entered denying the permit. The Department issued a final order on June 8, 1994, adopting the recommended order of the hearing officer and denying the permit. See Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Protection, 16 F.A.L.R. 2569 (DER June 8, 1994). In the final order the Department found that the following findings of Mr. Echternacht were "scientifically sound and credible conclusions": The estimated flushing for the presently open portion of the waterway was calculated to be 14.5 days. The flushing for the open section exceeds the 4 day flushing criterion by approx- imately 3.6 times. Clearly, the open portion poses a potential problem to the maintenance of acceptable water quality. For the presently closed sections of the waterway, the calculated flushing time was found to be 38.6 days. Again, this system would pose a significant potential for contamination to adjacent open waters if opened for use. The waters behind the barrier that presently appear to pose no problem would clearly become a repository for contaminants associated with boat usage. Because of the exceptionally long flushing time, contaminants would build up over time. Below standard water quality throughout the waterway would be expected and, associated with this, below standard water would be exported into adjacent clean water on each ebbing tide. The final order also found the following facts: 13. Neither the water in the open canals nor the water in the closed canals is presently of substandard quality. * * * Petitioner's plug removal project will also spur development in the Cahill subdivision and lead to an increase in boat traffic in the Cahill canal system, as well as in the adjacent waters of Pine Channel. Such activity will result in the discharge of additional contaminants in these waterways. As Echternacht stated in his June 25, 1993, memorandum that he sent to O'Connell, '[b]ecause of the [canal system's] exceptionally long flushing time, [these] contaminants would build up over time' and result in a significant degradation of the water quality of not only the Cahill canals, but also of Pine Channel, into which Cahill canals flow. This degradation of water quality will have an adverse effect on marine productivity and the conservation of fish and wildlife that now inhabit these waterways. Consequently, in the long run, the removal of the plugs will negatively impact fishing opportunities in the area. On the other hand, the project will have a beneficial effect on navigation and recreational boating and related activities. It will have no impact on historical and archaeological resources. On April 10, 1995, Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove portions of the two canal plugs. Cahill proposed to leave an island in the center of each plug. The islands would be stabilized with riprap, and mangrove seedlings would be planted in the riprap. By letter dated April 21, 1995, the Department returned the April 10 permit application to Cahill along with the $500.00 processing fee. The Department advised Cahill that the application was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which was denied by final order. The Department further advised that Cahill could resubmit the application and application fee if it wanted the permit to be processed but the Department would deny the application on the basis of res judicata. On May 17, 1995, Cahill submitted a revised permit application along with the processing fee. A circulation culvert had been added to the project. Ken Echternacht performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project. In a memorandum dated May 25, 1995, Mr. Echternacht recommended that the permit be denied for the following reasons: The proposed 24-inch culvert connection would not be expected to be visible hydraulically. A 24-inch diameter culvert, length 181 ft would be expected to have a friction factor several orders of magnitude greater than the adjacent canals. As such, water would not be expected to pass through the connector unless there were a sizeable head to drive the flow. No studies and/or supporting documentation have been provided to support the design in terms of the documenting the amplitude and repeatability of the flow driving force. Cutting holes through embankments do not necessarily result in flushing relief. As stated in 1, above, any and all proposed design modifications to the proposed waterway must be accompanied by adequate design justifi- cation based on hydrographic modeling supported by site specific data support. The culvert design proposed does not meet the above require- ment. The proposal is nothing new. In the hearing, ideas such as the above were suggested. However, as was stated in the hearing any and all such proposals must be supported by proper engineering study. On July 7, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial, denying the May, 1995 permit application on the basis of res judicata, stating that the May 1995 permit was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which had been denied and that no studies had been submitted by Cahill that would support that the use of the islands and culvert would increase the flushing rate to the four day flushing criterion established in the hearing on the 1991 permit application. At the final hearing counsel for Cahill stated for the record that the use of the islands and the culvert would not increase the flushing rate to four days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Cahill Pines and Palms Property Owners Association, Inc.'s application for a permit to remove two plugs separating the open and closed canal sections of the Cahill canal system, placing an island in the center of each plug, and adding a 24 inch culvert connection. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4377 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-7: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraph 8: The evidence presented showed that there is a dispute of whether the waters are now of substandard quality. For the purposes of this hearing, it is not necessary to determine whether the water quality is presently substandard. Based on the assumption that the water quality is not substandard, Petitioner has failed to show that the change in the design of the project is sufficient to warrant the rejection of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. Petitioner has failed to show that the addition of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for future contamination of the waters. The second sentence is accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 9-11: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance to the extent that for the purposes of this hearing the water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraph 16: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-27: Rejected as subordinate to the finding that for the purposes of this hearing the present water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraphs 28-30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Accepted in substance to the extent that the changes in the design will not increase the flushing rate to four days. Paragraphs 32-33: Accepted to the extent that they were findings in the final order on the 1991 application. Paragraphs 34-35: Accepted to the extent that the slow flushing rate is one of the criteria to be considered. The increase of development and boat traffic are also contributors to the potential of contamination building up. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the use of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for contamination. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance as corrected. Paragraph 17: Accepted. Paragraphs 18-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: Accepted. Paragraph 23: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Paul Horan, Esquire Horan, Horan and Esquinaldo 608 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040-6549 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Chandler sought exemption from permitting requirement from the Department to perform certain dredging in two artificial dead-end canals located in Placida Point Subdivision (formerly Porto-Fino Subdivision), Charlotte County, Florida. The Department has denied the exemption on the basis that "the proposed work indicates that it is not for maintenance purposes, and therefore, it does not fit the maintenance exemption". The dredging proposed by Chandler would remove the existing earthen plugs between Coral Creek (an adjacent creek) and the two canals. Coral Creek is a natural body of water and is waters of the State. The two canals were excavated (constructed) during the latter part of 1969 and early 1970 (before April 1970). Although no original design specifications were offered into evidence, there is sufficient competent evidence to show that at the time the canals were constructed earthen plugs were left between the canals and Coral Creek which restricted the water exchange between the canals and Coral Creek. The exchange of water apparently occurred at mean high water, and navigation, if any, was restricted to small boats. Porto-Fino Realty Co., Inc., (Porto-Fino) developed the Porto-Fino Subdivision in 1971, and in early 1971 applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) for a dredge permit to connect the certain existing canals, which included the canals in question, to Coral Creek. As part of the application review, a site inspection was made, and it was found that the earthen plugs left between Coral Creek and the canals when they were constructed allowed water to ebb and flow during periods of high tide. As a result of this site inspection, it was recommended that before any further consideration be given the permit application, that the applicant be advised that the canals had to be adequately diked. The record is not clear on whether this permit was granted, but apparently it was not because this subject was raised again in 1974 with Lou Fusz Motor Company, the present owner of Porto-Fino Subdivision, by the Board and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps). Apparently, it was determined by the Board, and possibly by the Corps, that the plugs had washed out and needed to be repaired. In 1975, at the request of the Board, the earthen plugs were repaired and culverts placed in the plugs to allow flushing of the canals. The earthen plugs are presently in existence in the mouth of the canals, and are colonized by mangroves, Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The mangroves are mature trees 10-15 feet in height, and approximately 10-15 years old. The plugs do not show any signs of any recent dredging in or around the mouths of the canals. The plugs form a barrier to navigation between the canals and Coral Creek. The canals have not been used for navigational access to Coral Creek since they were repaired in 1975. The canals have not been previously dredged to maintain navigational access for boat traffic to Coral Creek, and are not presently used for navigational access to Coral Creek. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the earthen plugs, as they presently exist, are man-made barriers that separated the two canals from Coral Creek. There is insufficient evidence to show that the repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was illegal. The repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was necessary because the original plugs had not been properly constructed or had washed out over the period of years. Coral Creek and the canals in question are surface waters of the state as defined in Rule 17-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Canals which are used for navigation have to be periodically dredged to maintain navigational access. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the dredging proposed by Chandler would not be "maintenance dredging" as contemplated by Rule 17-312.050(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an access permit free from the drainage permitting requirements of Chapter 14-86, Florida Administrative Code, or whether the terms and conditions proposed in the Notice of Intent to Issue should be required for project number 94-A-799-0019, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 19 and State Road 686 in Pinellas County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation has been the state agency responsible for the issuance of access connection permits for the access to and from property to the roads maintained by the State of Florida. It is also responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of rules governing the application for an issuance of drainage connection permits regarding those roads and properties. Petitioner, J. O. Stone, as Trustee of the J. O. Stone Revocable trust dated 9/26/78, owns and proposes to develop a parcel of property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 19 and State Road 686, (East Bay Drive), in Pinellas County, Florida. The property in question is a piece of commercial land approximately six acres in area. In September 1994, Petitioner applied to the Department for an access management permit to allow proposed commercial establishments proposed to be built on that property to be connected to the state highway system. The development proposal called for construction of two restaurants and parking sufficient to support them. The property in issue was previously occupied by restaurants, a gasoline station and business facilities which had access to the abutting roads. Petitioner purchased the property more than twenty-five years ago and it is now vacant land. Petitioner did not seek a drainage connection permit at the time he requested the access management permit, and resists seeking one now because he believes the project in issue is exempt from the requirement for such a drainage connection permit. In fact, at the same time the Petitioner submitted his access connection permit request, he also submitted a formal request in writing to the Department requesting a confirmation of exemption from the drainage permit criteria under Chapter 14-86. The Department never acted on this secondary request until it included the requirement for a drainage permit as a condition of the access permit intent to issue. By virtue of its preparation of an intent to issue, with conditions, the Department, Petitioner claims, has indicated its intention to issue the requested access management permit conditioned upon the application for an approval of the drainage connection permit. There is some evidence that Petitioner’s staff was advised by Department officials that under the Department’s interpretation of the pertinent rules, the project does not meet all three criteria for exemption outlined in the pertinent rule, but at no time, according to Petitioner, was he ever given any specifics regarding how the Department considers the relevant criteria are not met by his proposal. The property is bordered on the east by the Department’s right-of-way for US Highway 19, and on the north by the right-of- way for State Road 686. On the west and south the property is bordered by a branch of Long Branch Creek Channel 2, which flows generally to the northeast to Highway 19, through a box culvert under that highway, and then, variably, southeast, east and northeast until it empties into Tampa Bay. The September 1994 application calls for the construction of three driveways from and to the property for restaurant development. Two of the driveways would connect with State Road 686, (the western access would be for right out traffic only and the eastern one would be for right in traffic only), and one would connect with U.S. Highway 19. This latter connection would be for both in and out traffic. Though the original application was accompanied by a request for an exemption from the requirement for a drainage connection permit, no mention was made regarding this ancillary issue during any of the parties’ negotiations and discussions until just before the issuance of the notice of intent. Consistent with his application for access management permit from the Department, Petitioner also sought required permits from other entities such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County. These permits have been granted. In November 1995, Petitioner received a letter from the Department which indicated that after review by its drainage staff, a determination was made that the proposed project was not exempt from the requirement for a drainage connection permit. This determination was made on the basis of the Department’s interpretation of the provisions of the pertinent rule that was different from that of the Petitioner. There appeared then, and appears now, to be no dispute regarding the underlying facts of the case. Chapter 14-86(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, lists three criteria for granting an exemption, all of which must be met to permit the issuance of an exemption from the requirements for a drainage access permit. The first of these provides that no more than 5,000 feet of impervious area may drain to the property in the pre- developed condition. With a small exception, this property drains away from the Departments right-of-way, so Petitioner contends his project meets that criteria. The second prohibits any work within the right-of-way that will create or alter a drainage connection, and Petitioner contends that since the only work to be done within the right-of- way area is the installation of the three driveways, the project also meets that criteria as well. The third requirement is that the property be located in a watershed which has a positive outfall. Since this property is located in the Long Branch Creek basin, which outfalls to Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Petitioner contends it meets that criteria as well, thereby qualifying the project for the exemption. A survey of the property made in 1995 indicated that with the minor exception of approximately 1,000 or so square feet of paved area in the extreme northeast corner of the parcel, which constitutes a portion of the State’s road construction, all of the natural drainage on the property is from the northeast to the southwest or west, directly away from the State’s right-of way. Planned near-term development of the parcel calls for the approximate northern half to be used for the construction of two restaurants and related parking. The two-way access onto the U.S. Highway 19 right-of-way is to be located at the southern end of the parking lots, approximately half way down the property. In the southern half of the property, more to the west, Petitioner proposed to construct a 12,000 square foot holding pond. Communications between Petitioner and the Department show that the Department understands that the property drains into the Long Branch creek Channel Two but has taken the position that the holding pond will also drain in the channel which ultimately, approximately 285 feet downstream from the drainage connection, crosses the state right-of-way and through the box culvert under U.S. Highway 19. The Department considers this a connection discharge which requires a permit, and Petitioner considers it to be a situation which qualifies for an exemption from the permitting requirements. This issue first became a matter for discussion between the parties in November 1995. By letter dated December 8, 1995, the Department advised Petitioner that the link-up described disqualifies the project from an exemption. A meeting of the parties was subsequently held in January 1996, at which Petitioner provided additional calculations and evidence of other similar situations where the agency did not require the drainage permit, but the Department remains adamant in its position. In February 1996, the Department wrote to Petitioner restating its position and demanding the project include a drainage connection permit. On March 5, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Intent with the condition that the Petitioner obtain a drainage connection permit prior to the issuance of the access connection permit. Petitioner cannot accept this condition, contending that the requirement for the drainage connection permit would have an unacceptable impact on the project. Petitioner’s major objection to the requirement for a drainage connection permit is financially based. As was previously noted, the project as currently proposed by Petitioner would call for a 12,000 square foot holding pond. When the remainder of the property is developed according to plan, the holding pond will be increased to 18,000 square feet. However, under the criteria imposed by the Department for a drainage connection permit, the size of the holding pond to accommodate the proposed future development would require increase to 30,000 square feet, an increase of 12,000 square feet, (approximately ¼ acre), of prime commercial property which would not be available for productive development. No figures were provided to place a dollar value on that impact at current or future rates. The Department’s concerns which form the basis for the drainage connection permit requirement relate to protection of the state right-of-way and both downstream and upstream property owners from flooding due to excessive run-off. Petitioner argues that the Water Management District permitting criteria regarding run-off consider the situations most likely to occur. The Department admits that Petitioner has met the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, but notes that Department criteria are substantially different and are more stringent. Many more scenarios are considered by the Department than by the Water Management District. The Department contends that while in the instant case the connection is not directly to the right-of-way, it nonetheless drains to a right-of-way, and the potential for flooding at the Department’s right-of-way, as the result of drainage from the property in question in the event of a major storm, justifies the permit requirements. Mr. Radcliffe, a registered civil engineer employed by Petitioner’s engineering design company, disputes the Department’s concerns, asserting that the water flow increase in Long Branch Creek Channel Two at the box culvert under US Highway 19 from this project would peak well before the major flow from run-off upstream from the connection would get there. In his opinion, there is little chance that the instant project would have any impact on run-off to the state right-of-way. Therefore, little benefit would be obtained from applying the more stringent state requirement as opposed to the more liberal water management district criteria. Mr. Lopez-Paniagua claims that Petitioner does not meet criteria number one, as outlined in Rule 14-86.003(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the project has about 12,000 square feet of impervious area. Petitioner, he asserts, has not proven to the Department’s satisfaction that its drainage meets the criteria. Here, the project drains to a ditch at a point which is approximately 285 feet from the right-of-way for U.S. 19. It is Department policy to always review projects for drainage permit requirements, which projects are exempted if the review shows the project will not adversely affect the state highway system or the downstream property owners. Here, the Department contends, no such showing has been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from the drainage connection permitting requirements of Chapter 14-86, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 30th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Charles F. Barber, Esquire Alford, Barber & Mariani 1550 South Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34614 Michael A. Hanson, Esquire 1207 North Himes Avenue Tampa, Florida 33607 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attention: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Sarasota County Utilities should be issued a consumptive use permit to draw water from the 14 wells in issue here located in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for themanagement of water resources within its area of geographical jurisdiction. Included therein was the responsibility for the permitting of consumptive water use. The Respondent, Sarasota County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utilities division which is charged with meeting, among other things, the potable water needs of the residents of the County. Petitioners Wyatt S. Bishop and Joan Jones are both residents of Sarasota County and both draw their potable water from wells which utilize the aquifers pertinent to the wells for which the permit in issue here relate. Mr. Bishop lives approximately 7.5 miles north of the Carlton Reserve, the property on which the wells in issue are located, and Ms. Jones lives approximately 7 miles from the Reserve, but in a different direction. Sarasota County filed an application for a consumptive use permit with the District on January 28, 1987 requesting an average daily withdrawal of 10.71 million gallons per day, (mgd), and a peak monthly withdrawal of 15.55 mgd. This application, assigned number 208836.00, was, over the next three years, amended by the County four separate times. These amendments reflected revised water demand determinations and were submitted to provide additional information requested by the District. The District issued a preliminary staff report and proposed intent on March 26, 1991 reflecting an approved withdrawal in the amount of 7.28 mgd average daily withdrawal and 11.1 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. These figures were revised, however, byan amendment by the District on July 8, 1991, and as amended, authorize 7.303 mgd average daily withdrawal and 9.625 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. The County's application was reviewed by an experienced hydrologist in the District office with extensive permit review experience who utilized, in his evaluation of the permit, the pertinent District rules and policies. By way of background, to more easily understand the circumstances here, Sarasota entered into a contract with Manatee County in 1973 which called for the latter to provide up to 10 mgd of water for a period of 40 years, up to and including the year 2013. However, in 1979, Manatee County's utilities director advised Sarasota County that it, Sarasota County, could not continue to rely on Manatee County's water after the expiration of the current contract, and would, therefore, have to become self sufficient in water. Since the MacArthur tract, now known as the Carlton Reserve, had just recently been identified by, inter alia, the United States Geological Service as a potential long term water source for Sarasota County, after Manatee County advised Sarasota County of its future expectations, Sarasota County and the Manasota Basin Board hired a consulting firm to conduct hydrological testing on the Carlton Reserve. This study concluded that the Reserve had sufficient water resources to satisfy the needs of the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County for an extended time into the future. In 1985, because of its increased water needs and thetime necessary to complete required studies on the utilization of the Myakka River, a surface water resource, Sarasota County concluded that it was suffering a water supply shortage and entered into a supplemental contract with Manatee County to provide 2 million gallons of water per day over a 5 year period which would expire in 1990. Sarasota County had not, however, been idle with regard to the investigation of other water resources. Studies done included not only the Myakka River mentioned above but a reservoir owned by the City of Bradenton, and the Peace River. Nonetheless, it was determined that the Carlton Reserve was the best source available overall, and in 1987, the County filed the application in issue here. The permit was under consideration for approximately 3 1/2 years before the initial decision by the District to grant it. During that time the County experienced a significant deficiency in its water sources and found it necessary, on February 5, 1991, to enter into another contract with Manatee County to supply an addition 5 mgd. Terms of that contract clearly indicate the expectations of both parties that Sarasota County will take reasonable steps to develop its own water resources. It is not as though Sarasota County sat quietly in the interim, however, and allowed the situation to develop. A building moratorium to halt additional construction was proposed and as a result, economic forces in the County indicated a potential loss of jobs to County residents. None of this would be desirable from an economicstandpoint. In the course of the permit application process, 12 test wells were sunk to conduct aquifer pump tests; to assess water quality, amounts and availability, aquifer characteristics and drawdown; and to determine the impact of withdrawal on water quality. Eight of these 12 wells are located on the Carlton Reserve. The other 4 are located on property owned by the MacArthur Foundation which is contiguous to the Carlton Reserve property and from which Sarasota has a right by easement to draw water. The 2 wells yet to be constructed will be on Sarasota County property. Sarasota County currently receives 10 mgd of water under its contract with Manatee County; an additional 5 mgd under the February 5, 1991 contract; 2 mgd from the University wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 3 mgd); and .9 mgd from the Sorrento wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 1.1 mgd). This latter source is only producing currently .6 mgd of potable water due to constraints imposed by the water treatment requirements. Taken together, the current Sarasota County supply constitutes 18.6 mgd. The above does not take into account the County's agreement with the City of Sarasota calling for the purchase of up to 2 mgd. Since this source is not reliable, it is not included in the total, and the City is not considered an available water source. In addition, the District and Sarasota County stipulated on July 15, 1991 that within 30 days, the County would apply tophase out routine water production from the Sorrento wellfield, relying on it only in emergency situations with District consent. For this reason, it, too, is not considered an available water supply source. These currently existing sources, with modifications as described, will be the primary sources of potable water provided to 6 major service areas in Sarasota County when the County's water treatment plant and transmission system are complete in 1993. In attempting to define the County's future water requirements, two major criteria were considered. The first was the County's historical water demand, and the second, modifying it, relates to the demand arising as a result of new water users being added to the system as a result of the County's capital improvements and acquisition program. Water resources are not unlimited. Current resources come primarily from Manatee County and there are constraints on this supply as it is made available to Sarasota County. For example, the 10 mgd contract expires in 2013. The 5 mgd contract expires in 2001. Though the latter is subject to renewal, renewal is contingent upon the availability of water supply at that time, and that is not a sure thing. It can, therefore, readily be seen that 15 out of the 18.6 mgd routinely available now comes from Manatee County, and those sources are not perpetual. In addition, it is conceivable that Manatee County may pre-blend the water it delivers to Sarasota County with water of lesser quality, so that the delivered water may exceed the total dissolved solids standard of 500 ppm for potable water. If thewater from Manatee County were reduced to that quality, the University wellfield supply, which currently exceeds standards itself, and which relies on blending with better quality Manatee County water to be potable, would also be removed as a source of potable water to Sarasota County. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 373.171, Florida Statutes, which requires the District to regulate the use of water by apportionment, limitation, or rotating uses, to obtain the most beneficial use of water resources and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the District analyzed the available water sources and determined that Sarasota County relies upon its 10 mgd supply from Manatee County and the 2 mgd supply from University wellfield to constitute 12 mgd usable water. The 5 mgd from Manatee County would be used only in an emergency situation, and the Sorrento wellfield would be abandoned. Future water demands must be predicted relying in great part upon an historic record of prior water use. Utilizing a statistical procedure called linear regression, a methodology accepted by the District, indicated a water demand figure for the period from 1992 to 1997 based upon six use points extending from 1985 to 1990. These use records reflected a low of 9.733 mgd and a high of 12.808 mgd, the former being in 1985 and the latter in 1990. In addition, the County estimated that its capital improvement program would add between 10 and 12 thousand customers who presently use private wells, whose water use would constitute approximately 2 mgd of additional demand. The County's program toacquire some 42 private franchises now serving customers would add an additional demand of 2 mgd. Taken together, these programs would add in approximately 1.8 mgd per year to the need assessment, and it would therefore appear that by 1997, the County's average daily demand, considering all new users, would be 17.84 mgd. The water to be drawn from the Carlton Reserve is not currently potable and will require some form of treatment to render it so. Sarasota County proposes to use the Electrodialysis Reversal process, (EDR), because, in the County's judgement, it is more efficient than others such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Whereas EDR is rated at up to 85% efficient, the others range between 50% to 75% efficient. In that regard, in order to determine the maximum amount of water to be drawn, providing a safety factor for a treatment plant operation that is not working up to peak capacity in computing the water needs, the EDR process was determined to be no more than 80% efficient. Factoring in that efficiency potential, when the 1997 average daily demand is subtracted from the County's projected water capacity, the withdrawal need in 1997 is determined to be 7.303 mgd. However, as a part of its permitting process, the County also calculated its peak month daily demand. This is a figure which represents the maximum amount permitted to be drawn on a daily basis during the peak demand period. This peak period was determined under Section b 3.2 of the District's Basis of Review by taking the 1989 daily flow and using a sliding 31 day calendar to determine the highest historical 31 day flow. Thisresulted in a peak month coefficient of 6.16 which was then multiplied by the 1997 average daily demand of 17.842 mgd which resulted in a peak month daily demand of 20.7 mgd. When existing water supplies are removed and the 80% EDR treatment process factor is applied, the amount of raw water needed from the wellfield in issue on a peak monthly basis would be 9.625 mgd. This peak monthly basis figure is considered because of the intermittent periods of low rainfall and high water demand within the County. Accepting the 1.8 gpd yearly increase; the peak factor of 1.16; and the assumed water supply capacity of 18.6 mgd; Sarasota County's need will exceed its available supplies by 1993. In fact, the County is already experiencing low water pressure in part of its service area during peak demand periods. County experts estimate that without the requested water from the Carlton Tract, Sarasota County can expect to experience dry periods as early as 1993 during the periods of peak water usage, generally between April and June. For the above reason, when the application and its supporting information was reviewed by Mr. Basso, the District hydrologist with extensive experience reviewing more than 300 water use application, he determined that the water supplies requested are necessary to meet the County's certain reasonable demand, and that this meets the criteria set out in Rule 40D - 2.301(1)(a), F.A.C. Turning to the issue of hydrologic and environmental impacts, the District's Basis For Review of Water Permit Applications provides for the use of a "water use model" inevaluating water needs and the appropriateness of a proposed withdrawal. In preparing its submittal to the District, Sarasota County performed certain tests and modeling to derive the statistical and scientific information used in support of its application. Specifically it used the USGS' MODFLOW model utilizing information obtained from the pump tests run on the wells in the pertinent areas. Consistent with the District's rule, the water data and aquifer drawdown were determined by simulated pumping. The tests run also provided the information on water quality in the aquifer and physical characteristics including transmissivity, storage coefficient, specific yield and leakance between aquifers. This data also helped in defining the hydrogeologic framework of the Carlton Reserve. The Carlton Reserve's hydrogeology listed in descending order from the surface, includes a surficial aquifer which varies in depth between 19 and 70 feet across the Reserve; a semi-confining clay unit separating it from the intermediate aquifer; the upper intermediate and lower intermediate aquifer which range in depth from 140 to 180 feet across the Reserve; another confining layer, and the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers. The hydrology and groundwater modeling expert who constructed the model used in Sarasota County's permit application concluded that the water table drawdown at the Reserve property boundary in the surficial aquifer would be less than .3 of a foot; less than .4 of a foot in the intermediate aquifer; and 2.9 feet in the Upper Florida aquifer. The water to be drawn consistentwith this instant permit, if approved, would come from the Upper Floridan aquifer on the Reserve. The County's experts were conservative in the assumptions used in the groundwater model. It was assumed there would be no lateral water flow into the model area and no recharge. In addition, the model called for all pumps to run simultaneously at a maximum drawdown of 12.65 mgd for 90 days rather than at the requested quantity of 9.625 mgd. Utilization of these assumptions provided a scenario wherein "severe" impacts would be encountered. Based on the testing and the modeling done, expert opinion was that there would be no quantity or quality changes that would adversely effect water resources including ground and surface water. This meets the criteria of Rule 40D-2.301. This opinion was concurred in the District's hydrology expert. Nonetheless, in its proposed approval, the District has imposed special permitting conditions which require the County to monitor, analyze, and report water quality and water table level information to the District on a monthly and annual basis. When it evaluates the information supplied by an applicant relating to ground water monitoring, the District is required to consider certain presumptions set forth in its Basis For Review. For example, the District presumes that if there is a drawdown of more than 1 foot in the surficial aquifer at a wetland, adverse environmental impacts will occur. In the instant case, the County model concluded that the actual drawdown in the surficial aquifer at the Carlton Reserve is less than .6 of onefoot and, therefore, there should be no adverse environmental impact resulting from the withdrawal. Nonetheless, the County has developed several plans designed to provide information on environmental impacts which will continuously monitor such parameters as rainfall and evaporation, wetlands hydroperiod changes and vegetative changes in the wetlands to detect any changes which might be attributed to the water pumping. These plans have been made special conditions to the water use permit, and in the opinion of the County's ecology and hydrology expert, would enable the County to adequately monitor and detect any pertinent changes to the pertinent factors concerned on the Carlton Reserve. If wetland changes are detected, a contingency plan will be in effect which will require an alteration of pumping schedules or other action to minimize any adverse impacts. The District expert in wetlands and wildlife habitat has opined that these measures, with which he is familiar, are adequate to insure that adverse impacts to the wetlands will not occur. This is consistent with the provisions of Rule 40D-2.301(1). As was stated previously, the water to be drawn pursuant to this permit will be drawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This water is not potable but is treatable and is the lowest quality water which can be economically used by the County. Water of a lower quality does exist in the Lower Florida aquifer, but it is not economically treatable, and, in addition, use of this Lower Floridan aquifer might cause vertical movement of the poorer quality water into the upper strata. For all practical purposes,then, the lowest quality water available to it will be used by the County and this is consistent with the District's basis for review. Expert testimony indicates that saline water will not be infused into the Upper Floridan aquifer. Salt water intrusion generally occurs when groundwater is brought to a level below sea level. Even at the point of maximum actual drawdown as a result of pumping on the Reserve, the fresh water level will remain at least 20 feet above sea level, and as a result of the difference in water level, no saline water intrusion into the fresh water supply will occur even though salt water intrusion can also occur as a result of upward vertical movement of lower quality water due to withdrawal. The District's hydrologist and reviewing official also concluded that because of the confining layer below the aquifer from which water will be withdrawn, there would not be any significant upward movement of lesser quality water. The District's basis of review also envisions an aquifer pollution if a proposed withdrawal would spread an identified contamination plume. Here no contamination has been identified in the area from which the water will be drawn, and therefore, contamination would not be spread. The Basis for Review also infers there will be adverse impact to off site land if there is a significant drawdown of surface water bodies or if damage to crops or other vegetation can be expected. Here, the water table drawdown at the boundary of the Carlton Reserve is anticipated at less than .3 of one foot and any drawdown further out from the Reserve can be expected tobe even less. As a result, no adverse impact to existing off site land useage is expected. With regard to Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), relating to an adverse impact on existing legal uses, the District presumes that no adverse impact will exist if the drawdown in the water table is no more than 2 feet at an affected well, or the potentiometric surface at the well is not lowered by more than 5 feet. Here, again applying the County's groundwater modeling demonstrates that the drawdown at its worst, in the Upper Floridan aquifer, would be no more than 2.9 feet at the Reserve boundary and much less at the Petitioners' wells. Both Mr Bishop's and Ms. Jones' wells are approximately 7.5 and 7 miles, respectively, from the closest well on the Reserve property. Ms. Jones' well is drilled into the intermediate aquifer which is above that which the County proposes to use and should not be impacted. Mr. Bishop draws water from the intermediate and surficial aquifers, both of which are above the Upper Florida aquifer identified for use here, and the groundwater modeling would suggest that his well would not be impacted either. Sarasota County's application contains reference to numerous proposals for water conservation measures which it intends to implement or has already implemented. It has adopted ordinances to enforce the District's watering restrictions and is currently implementing a block inverted use rate structure to promote conservation. It has developed programs for use in the schools outlining water conservation efforts and is developing programs topromote the increased use of treated waste water for golf course irrigation. The requirement for a water conservation plan such as is described and envisioned by the County is a condition of the water use permit proposed, and in addition, the County has adopted an Ordinance, (90-38) which modifies its building code to require installation of water conservation devices in new buildings erected in the County. It has developed proposals for conservation measures such as water auditing, meter testing, leak detection, system looping, and pressure reduction, and has selected the EDR process of water purification as the most efficient use of groundwater resources. Petitioner, Bishop, testified to his belief that approval of this permit and the resultant water withdrawal on the Carlton Reserve would necessitate an expansion of the boundaries of the District's Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area to a point where his property would be encompassed therein. In support of his position, Mr. Bishop offered a notice to the effect that new ground water withdrawals would not be permitted within a certain "most impacted area" within the caution area. There was, however, no independent evidence from hydrologists, geologists, or other conservationists, or individuals familiar with the water conservation process, to support Mr. Bishop's contention that either the boundaries would be expanded or that withdrawal of the proposed permitted amounts of water from the Carlton Reserve would cause the boundaries to be expanded. By the same token, Mr. Bishop's contention that theproposed withdrawal from the wells here in issue would adversely effect his ability to draw water from his existing well was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence tending to support or confirm his contention. He had no evidence tending to contradict the County's and District's experts, all of whom indicated there would be no adverse impact on the environment or water resources as a result of the instant permit. Similarly, neither Petitioner offered any evidence of a demonstrative nature that would draw any connection between the proposed permitted withdrawals and potential salt water intrusion and water level drawdown in their wells. The County introduced construction permits issued by its own health department covering 8 of the 12 wells which have been drilled on the Carlton Reserve as test wells. These wells were clearly sunk pursuant to an agreement between the District and the County's public health unit which delegates authority for water well construction permitting to the County. Taken together the documentation indicates that these 12 wells on the Reserve were installed and permitted pursuant to and consistent with appropriate permitting processes, and the testimony of Mr. Bassarab, the County's expert who oversaw the installation of the wells, reflects they are appropriately grouted and sealed. Therefore, there will be no mixing of lower quality water from the lower portion of the Floridan aquifer with the better quality water from the upper portion of that aquifer. The County's evidence clearly refutes the allegation by Mr. Bishop that the 12 test wells currently existingon the Carlton Reserve were neither permitted nor inspected as required by the District. County Commissioner Hill, who testified on behalf of the Petitioners, indicated that the wells applied for here are unnecessary and an inappropriate expenditure of County funds. She claimed there are other valid sources of water available to the County, including that extracted from excavated shell pits and seawater from the Gulf of Mexico which could be treated and desalinated. The Commissioner's comments as to alternate sources are not specifically rebutted. However, she is neither an expert in hydrology or hydrogeology, and her testimony is not persuasive. While other water sources may exist, the better evidence clearly indicates that those sources are not sufficient to meet the County's needs or are otherwise inappropriate for use by the County in sufficient quantity to satisfy those needs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that consumptive water use permit No. 208836.00, providing for authorized quantities as outlined in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein, be issued to Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of September, 1991. 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 5th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONERS: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 8. Resolved against the Petitioners on the basis information presented by Respondents. 9.- 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 23. Accepted. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted. & 27. Noted as citation of authority. Rejected. & 30. Accepted as restatements of evidence but not as Findings of Fact. 31. Irrelevant. 32. Rejected 33. & 34. Not a error is, in fact, it is such. 35. - 38. Irrelevant. 39. - 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45. Rejected. 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. & 48. Rejected as a mere citation of testimony. 49. Not understandable. Not a Finding of Fact. 50. Accepted. 51. Evidence is acceptable. 52. Not sufficiently specific to rule upon. 53. Not proven. 54. Not specific. 55. & 56. Rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein, - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted - not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. Not correct as stated. Sarasota County will not be withdrawing saline water from the upper Floridan aquifer. The remaining discussion is accepted. Accepted and utilized. & 54. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60. Accepted. 61 - 63. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 66. Not Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr. 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Joan Jones 719 East Baffin Road Venice, Florida 34293 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman, Herb, Causey & Dooley 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34237 Cathy Sellers, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 215 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether the Petitioner (the District) has the authority and cause to revoke Right of Way Occupancy Permit Number 9591 that permitted Respondent to erect a fence and maintain two oak trees on real property that is subject to the District's maintenance easement and, if so, whether the District has the authority and cause to demand the removal of the fence, the two oak trees, and a key lime tree from the easement area.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a single family residence located at 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace, Miami, Florida. The rear of Respondent's property backs up to the north right of way of the District's C-100 Canal. The C-100 Canal is one of the works of the District and is an essential part of the District's flood control plan. The C-100 Canal system supports surface drainage and flood protection to approximately 40 square miles of Dade County, Florida. The property owned by the District in fee simple includes a strip of land that is adjacent and parallel to the north bank of the canal. This strip of land is twenty feet wide and provides the District with a portion of the land it requires for maintaining the canal. On February 18, 1964, Respondent's predecessor in title executed a document styled "Permanent Maintenance Easement" that granted to the District's predecessor agency an easement on and across a strip of land that constitutes the rear twenty feet of Respondent's property. The easement area is adjacent and parallel to the maintenance strip owned by the District. The instrument granting the easement provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . the grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the grantee . . . its successors and assigns, the perpetual maintenance easement and right for and to the use and enjoyment for canal maintenance purposes of the following described lands . . . for the purpose of ingress and egress in maintaining and operating Canal C-100, one of the works of the District . . ., and for no other purpose, it being understood and agreed that said land shall not be excavated and that no permanent structure of any kind shall be placed thereon. . . . All the covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective . . . successors and assigns. On April 9, 1992, the District issued to Respondent Permit Number 9591 which, subject to limiting conditions, authorized certain encroachments by Respondent into the easement area and described those encroachments as follows: 4' high chain link fence enclosure encroaching 20' and 2 trees inside the fenced enclosure within the District's 20' canal maintenance easement along the north right of way of C-100 located at the rear of 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace. Permit 9591 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The Permittee [the Respondent], by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . . . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risks of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The District has enacted Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, which provides the following standard limiting conditions of Permit 9591 pertinent to this proceeding: The District's authorization to utilize lands and other works constitutes a revocable license. In consideration for receipt of that licensure, permittees shall agree to be bound by the following standard limiting conditions, which shall be included within all permits issued pursuant to this chapter. * * * (3) This permit does not create any vested rights, and . . . is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. * * * (7) The permittee shall not engage in any activity regarding the permitted use which interferes with the construction, alteration, maintenance or operation of the works of the District, including: * * * (c) planting trees . . . which limit or prohibit access by District equipment and vehicles, except as may be authorized by the permit. Among the special limiting conditions of the permit are the following: The permittee is responsible for pruning trees in order that their canopies do not encroach within areas needed by the district for canal maintenance purpose. Upon the request of the district, the permittee shall trim or prune any growth which the district has determined interferes with the district's access, operations, and maintenance. Permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the canal right of way within the fenced area and also for the maintenance of the right of way to a point 10 feet outside the fenced area. At the time of the formal hearing, the easement area was enclosed by the fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 and there existed within the easement area two live oak trees and one key lime tree. The two oak trees were approximately ten years old. The evidence did not establish whether Respondent planted (or transplanted) the two oak trees. The key lime tree was planted by Respondent after the issuance of Permit 9591. It is necessary that the C-100 Canal be properly maintained and that the District have access to the canal for routine and emergency maintenance. Following Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, the District developed a maintenance plan for the C-100 Canal. The District did not have an established canal maintenance plan for the portion of the canal relevant to this proceeding at the time it granted Permit 9591. Prior to the development of its maintenance plan, little maintenance had been done on the canal in the area of Respondent's property. The District's decision to revoke Permit 9591 and to demand the removal of the fence and trees is in furtherance of the District's right of way maintenance plan and is only part of the District's enforcement and management efforts to remove permitted and non-permitted encroachments from maintenance easements in this area of the C-100 Canal. Respondent's property has not been singled out for this action. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent's property was the only area in the vicinity on which the District does not have 40' of unobstructed access adjacent to the canal. Respondent disputes that the District needs access to the portion of his property that is subject to the easement for the proper operation and maintenance of the C-100 Canal. Pertinent to this proceeding, the maintenance plan adopted by the District includes the use of land based equipment for erosion control and mowing of maintenance right of way areas and the routine and emergency dredging of the canal channel. The plan sets forth the anticipated maintenance activities for the area of the canal relevant to this proceeding, the type equipment that will be used, and the amount of right of way that will be required to perform the work. Emergency maintenance of the canal may be required in response to a heavy rain event since the District must be able to respond quickly if a part of the canal becomes clogged with debris. The equipment that the District will likely use for maintenance includes batwing mowers, front end loaders, dump trucks, draglines, and towboats. The District established that the 20' strip of land it owns in fee title does not provide sufficient room for the maneuvering of the heavy equipment that will be required for the routine and emergency maintenance of the canal. These pieces of heavy equipment require 40' of unobstructed land to set up and to operate safely and effectively. The District established that it needs the additional area provided by the easement on Respondent's property to properly perform its operation and maintenance of the C-100 canal. The fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 blocks the District's access to the easement area. Consequently, it is found that the District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the fence. The District's easement entitles it to unobstructed access to the easement area and provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the fence. The District established that it has cause to demand that Respondent remove the fence from the easement area. Respondent also disputes that the two live oak trees and the key lime tree that are in the easement area need to be removed even if it is found necessary to remove the fence. In their present condition, the three trees, especially the two oaks, obstruct a major portion of the easement area and interfere with the District's intended use of the easement area. Even if the trees are pruned as they grow to maturity, they will significantly interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The bases of the oak trees are approximately 2.5' and 6.5', respectively, from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. The two oaks are approximately the same size and are expected to grow to maturity at the same rate. At the time of the formal hearing, the canopies of the trees were approximately 20' tall and 10' wide. In five years, the canopies are expected to be approximately 25' tall and 25' wide. In ten years, the canopies are expected to be 30' tall and 30' wide. At maturity, the canopies are expected to be 35' tall and 40' wide. The District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the two oak trees. The District also has cause to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees from the easement area. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees. The base of the key lime tree is approximately 10' from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. Although this is a relatively small tree, its presence obstructs the operation of equipment within the easement area. At maturity the canopy of the key lime tree is expected to be between 12 to 15' in height and between 12 and 15' in width. The tree trunks and the tree canopies obstruct the operation of equipment within the easement area. This interference cannot be resolved by pruning the trees. The District has cause to demand that Respondent remove the key lime tree that he planted on the easement area since that tree was not permitted by Permit 9591 and is contrary to limiting condition 7(c). The existence of the key lime tree is found to interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order that revokes Permit 9591 and demands that Respondent remove the fence, the two oak trees, and the key lime tree from the easement area within thirty days from the date the final order becomes final. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0049 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 45 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3, 8, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 23 and 24 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26 and 27 are incorporated as preliminary matters, but are rejected as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings of fact are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Allen Glazier, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Mr. Robert A. Robinson 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Samuel E. Pool, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact The CLDD was established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, on August 4, 1967. Its purpose was to "reclaim" or render the land within its boundaries usable for agricultural purposes. The land comprising the CLDD consists of approximately 3,500 acres in Lee County, mostly planted in citrus trees. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, a "Plan of Reclamation" was prepared by consulting engineers for the CLDD's Board of Supervisors in August, 1967. That plan contains provisions for reclaiming lands within the CLDD's boundaries and for managing and controlling surface water within CLDD. The method of water control outlined in the 1967 reclamation plan included a dike and ditch system around the boundaries of CLDD with a series of interior canals to carry excess water away from the citrus trees. The land in the north part of he CLDD is higher than the south and water generally, naturally flows from north to south. The interior canals were designed to carry water in accordance with existing contours of the land and eventually discharge excess surface water to the rim ditches on the north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," which is south of the CLDD and which was then owned by the C&SFFCD, the predecessor agency to SFWMD. The system of drainage delineated in that 1967 plan, inaugurated pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, was put into effect substantially as described therein. CLDD's 1967 plan was altered somewhat because of an agreement entered into on September 30, 1971, between the CLDD and neighboring landowner Kenneth Daniels. Pursuant to that agreement, the two parties agreed to extend the dike on the west side of the CLDD property and construct a ditch from a point 50 feet north of the northwest corner of the Petitioner Mellor's property, which new ditch was to run southwest across the Daniels' property and connect with Spanish Creek. That ditch or canal would thus connect the western rim ditch of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" with Spanish Creek and have the result that surface waters could be discharged from CLDD lands through the western rim ditch of Spoil Area "M" thence through the "Daniels' Ditch" finally discharging into the lower reaches of Spanish Creek. (see Exhibits 1 and 11) Because the western side or western rim canal of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" had not been used under the original plan of reclamation approved by the C&SFFCD, CLDD sought permission from C&SFFCD to use this western rim canal for the purpose stated pursuant to the agreement with Daniels. Thus, CLDD's proposed use of the rim canal of Spoil Area "M" would be confined to the western, northern and eastern perimeter canals and not the southern boundary canal. All affected landowners, Kenneth Daniels as well a Jake and Lilly Lee, agreed to those proposed installations and uses. The resulting agreement between CLDD and C&SFFCD was entered into on October 12, 1972, and describes the flood control District land to be used by CLDD as a 100 foot wide strip running along the west, north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," also know as "Aspic." This 100 foot wide strip of land running thusly is co-extensive with the rim ditch of Spoil Area "M." The CLDD was mandated by this agreement to install 72- inch pipes in the rim ditch at the southwest corner of the spoil area, just north of the Mellor property, giving a point of discharge from the western rim ditch into the Daniels' Ditch with similar pipes connecting that Daniels' Ditch with Spanish Creek, such that the canal between these two points could carry water from the west rim ditch to Spanish Creek. The easement incorporated in this agreement was to last for five years with an option for a five-year renewal, which option was exercised. At the end of this 10-year period, SFWMD, successor to C&SFFCD, notified CLDD that because its statutory authority had since changed, the easement could not be renewed and that CLDD would have to seek the subject permit so as to be authorized to use works and lands of the District. The requirements to be met by an applicant for a right-of-way permit such as this one are set out in Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, and SFWMD's permitting information manual, Vol. V, Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District, July, 1981, which is incorporated by reference in that rule. In that connection, the permit at issue, if granted, would not cause an interference with the "works" of the District, that is dikes, ditches, flood control structures arid drainage structures because it would merely renew the pre-existing authorized use. The permit will not be inconsistent with an comprehensive water use plan developed by the District. Further, the permit applicant owns or leases the land adjacent to the portion of the "works of the District" involved herein that is the east, north and west rim ditches of Spoil Area "M," the Daniels' Ditch and the pipes at either end of it coupled with the water control structures at the southeast corner and southwest corners of Spoil Area "M," which control water entering the south rim ditch. CLDD has a surface water management permit, issued in August, 1980, which is a prerequisite to the granting of the subject right-of-way permit. It remains in full force and effect. That surface water management permit authorizes "operation of a water management system serving 3,642 acres of agricultural lands by a network of canals and control structures, with a perimeter dike and canal discharging into Cypress Creek." The "surface permit" authorized the system of drainage and discharge in existence at the time of its issuance, May 8, 1980. The system of drainage, at the day of the hearing, consisted of the same basic water flow and discharge pattern that existed for approximately 10 years, and this permit would allow that to be continued, thus, there will not be any additional effect on environmentally sensitive lands occasioned by an issuance of the subject right-of-way permit. The surface water management permit, by its terms, refers initially to the operation of a water management system" . . . discharging into Cypress Creek." The reference to "Cypress Creek" was an administrative error. The express language on the face of the permit authorization incorporates by reference the application, including all plans and specifications attached thereto, as addressed by the staff report, and those materials, including the staff report, are a part of the permit. The complete permit, including all those documents incorporated by reference, makes it clear that the authorization of the surface water management permit was that the system of drainage in existence at the time of permit issuance (1980) was that which was being approved, and that included discharge to Spanish Creek and not Cypress Creek. Discharge of water to Cypress Creek as an alternative was never recommended or authorized by that surface water management permit. This is clearly the intent expressed in the permit in view of the language contained in a special condition of that surface water management permit imposed by the SFWMD as a condition for issuance which stated as follows: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit the permittee shall submit for staff approval a proposal and schedule for the elimination of the adverse impacts being created by the operation of the permittee's water management system, which can be legally and physically accomplished by the permittee. Adverse impacts are considered herein to be reduced flows to Spanish Creek and increased flows to Cypress Creek. Thus, it is obvious that the authorization of the surface water management permit was designed to provide for discharge into Spanish Creek and to enhance the flows to Spanish Creek pursuant to a required proposal which the permittee submitted to SFWMD. Thus, the right-of-way permit applied for herein is consistent with the valid surface water management permit held by the permit applicant in this proceeding. Petitioners William H. and Patricia H. Mellor are co-owners of parcels of property lying some distance south of Spoil Area "4" in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee River. This property does not abut the spoil area at any point. Spanish Creek does cross their property several thousand feet south of the south boundary of the spoil area. In the past, particularly in 1982, water flowing from the south rim ditch of the spoil area through a break in the dike of that south rim ditch, has flowed through a ditch known as Dry Creek in a generally southerly direction under S.R. 78 and has washed out an access road constructed by William Mellor which leads from Highway 78 to his property. He had this washout repaired at his own expense in 1982. The washout was caused by water from CLDD flowing into the south rim canal of Spoil Area "M," that is, the ditch that traverses (and defines) the southerly boundary of the spoil area. Mr. Mellor admitted, however, that SFWMD had at least partially plugged the opening in the south rim ditch which had allowed flow down the Dry Creek ditch and wash out his road. If closed water control structures are maintained at the southwest and southeast corners of the spoil area ditches, then no water could flow into the south rim canal and no such injury could again be caused. Petitioner's Jim English and Patricia Mellor are co-owners of a 45- acre parcel of land located in the southwest corner of Spoil Area "M." The five acres forming the extreme southwest corner of the spoil area do not belong to these Petitioners, but are owned by one Lynwood Brown, who is not a party to this proceeding. The English/Mellor property forms a part of the spoil area, but does not adjoin or constitute any part of the spoil area which is sought to be used by CLDD through the proposed right-of-way use permit (as clarified by CLDD's stipulation). The south rim ditch, either part of, or adjoined by their property, has been used for water storage in the past (they maintain illegally) 1/ Mr. Tom Pancoast has observed Spanish Creek frequently over a nine- year period starting in approximately 1973. He has often used those waters during that period for fishing. During the early years of his use and observation of Spanish Creek, the water flowed out of Spanish Creek into the Caloosahatchee River. Beginning in about 1976, the water appeared to be flowing in the opposite direction, from the river into Spanish Creek. Contemporaneous with this hydrologic change, the creek has become increasingly characterized by siltation and hyacinth growth. Mr. William Mellor owns property along the course of Spanish Creek. He has used the stream for recreational purposes, picnicking where the stream traverses his property. In recent years there has occurred a marked increase in the growth or profusion of aquatic plants of unidentified types in the creek, reduced clarity and reduced flows or volumes of water in the creek. Witness English has made a similar observation. Witness James English has a substantial degree of training by formal education and experience in water management and drainage practices and methods, particularly as they relate to citrus grove development and management in southwest Florida. Mr. English has observed Spanish Creek regularly for most of his life, including the region of its headwaters in the "Cow Prairie Cypress," a remnant wetland cypress strand lying within the CLDD immediately north of Soil Area "M." The chief adverse impact of the CLDD water management system is reduced flow to Spanish Creek, especially its upper reaches since the advent of the "Daniels' Ditch" as a drainage route and discharge point into lower Spanish Creek. However, the only special condition on the issuance of the surface water management permit approving CLDD's extant water management system was the requirement that CLDD should submit a plan for eliminating that adverse effect, which it did (as Petitioner English admits). Beyond the submission of such a plan, no concrete action designed to restore historic flows to Spanish Creek has yet begun, however. The restoration of historic flows, adequate in volume and quality, to the entire creek system would require discharging water from CLDD's system to the Cow Prairie Cypress area at the headwaters of the creek rather than substantially further downstream at the present Daniels' Ditch site. The Petitioners' complaints (aside from the issue of adequacy of flows in Spanish Creek), although meritorious, are, because of stipulations asserted by CLDD during the course of this proceeding, now rendered moot. CLDD stipulated that it only seeks a permit to use the west, north and eastern spoil area ditches. It does not seek and stipulated that it will not use, at any time, the south rim ditch and will maintain water control structures so to block water from entering that ditch. This will alleviate the problem of potential storage of water on Petitioners English and Patricia Mellor's property and the erosion problem on Petitioners William and Patricia Mellor's property south of the spoil area. It was thus established that the issuance of the right-of-way permit will not cause the injuries these Petitioners have suffered in the past because of use of the south rim ditch for water drainage and storage.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District grant the County Line Drainage District's application for a permit for utilization of works and lands of the District. Subject to the following special condition: Issuance of this right-of-way permit does not relieve the Respondent CLDD from the responsibility of complying with special condition number 1 of the surface water management permit number 36-00184-S. Respondent CLDD shall, within 30 days of date of permitting, submit a design to the satisfaction of the SFWMD staff which will prevent the ability of CLDD to discharge to the southern rim ditch, described above. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500165 requested average withdrawal of water of 1,804,750 gallons per day from 4 wells located about a mile east of Highway 41 and a mile north of Apollo Beach. The four wells would be for irrigation of tomato crops on total acreage of 4 acres located in Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1, Testimony of Elsberry and Boatwright). Notice of hearing as to the application was published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with statute and rule (Exhibit 3). A letter of objection from Joseph S. Benham, Apollo Beach, Florida, dated November 19, 1975 was submitted to the Water Management District, wherein he expressed concern regarding water shortages and, although he does not seek to totally deny the application, is of the belief that the district must insure sufficient controls and management of irrigation activities so that resources are not wasted, water runoff to drainage ditches is eliminated and renewed justification is given each year for the withdrawal (Exhibit 2). A representative of the District staff established that there would be no violation of statutory or regulatory requirement for issuance of a consumptive water use permit in this case except as to the fact that potentiometric level of the applicant's property would be lowered below sea level as a result of withdrawal. It was agreed at the hearing that a period of thirty days should be granted both parties to formulate a stipulation as to control of runoff. An unsigned stipulation was received from the Water Management District by the hearing officer on March 1, 1976, which provided that the permit would be granted with the following stipulations: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expense install metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. (Testimony of Boatwright, Exhibit 4).
Recommendation That application 8500165 submitted by Elsberry and Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida, for a consumptive water use permit be granted with the conditions as follow: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expenseinstall metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. That the Board grant an exception to the provision of Rule 16J- 2.11(4)(e), F.A.C., for good cause shown. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Elsberry & Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida
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
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) modification for the construction of a surface water management system, to be issued to Respondent, Miromar Lakes, LLC (Miromar), which will serve a 29.08-acre single- family residential development known as The Peninsula Phase IV (Phase IV) located in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Miromar is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns property in the Miromar Lakes community in Lee County on which a development known as Phase IV will be constructed. Miromar is the applicant for the Phase IV permit. The District is a government entity with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to part IV, chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code. In implementing this power and duty, the District has adopted the Applicant's Handbook (AH) to provide standards and guidance to applicants. Alico is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. It is the owner of property immediately adjacent to and north of Miromar's property. Respondents have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish Alico's standing. The Conceptual Permit This case concerns Miromar's application to modify a conceptual permit issued by the District more than 15 years ago. On June 10, 1999, the District issued ERP Permit No. 36-03568-P, a conceptual approval permit for the development of a large, mixed-use residential development with a golf course, known as Miromar Lakes, that lies east of Interstate 75 (I-75), south of Alico Road, and north of Florida Gulf Coast University. The permit also approved a surface water management system designed to serve a 1481.1-acre mixed-use development within Miromar Lakes. Alico asserts that the permit is so vague in future development details that it is impossible to determine whether Phase IV is consistent with its terms and conditions. However, the 1999 permit was not contested, and any attempt in this proceeding to challenge that permit, or subsequent modifications to the permit that are now final, is untimely. A conceptual permit is available to applicants who wish to have their design concept approved for a master plan or future plan. So long as the future phases are consistent with the conceptual permit and there are no changes to applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria, the applicant does not need to reapply under the current rules for subsequent phases. Instead, it allows an applicant to take advantage of the rules in effect at the time of the original permit issuance. A conceptual permit typically leaves construction details to future development decisions. As District witness Waterhouse explained, this is "the nature of a conceptual permit." Because the landowner does not know the precise manner in which the property will be developed years down the road, "it doesn't make sense to force the landowner to pretend that they do because it's a pretty good bet that those things are going to change to some extent in the future." By way of example, Waterhouse noted that "[a]s long as it's single family proposed then and it's proposed now, I would characterize that as sufficient detail." It is not surprising, then, that the 1999 permit contains very little detail regarding the existence, location, or development of roads, lots, a stormwater management system, or grading, and that the construction permit for Phase IV has far more detail than the conceptual permit. Even Alico's expert agreed that there is no requirement that a conceptual permit include the details of each subsequent construction phase. A fair inference to draw is that the District intended for the developer to have considerable latitude in developing the large tract of undeveloped land, phase by phase, over the life of the conceptual permit. The 1999 permit has been modified over 60 times since its issuance, and to date, significant portions of Miromar Lakes have been constructed. Except for the current, on-going feud between Miromar and Alico over several recent or pending applications (see Case Nos. 15-1050, 15-3937, and 15-5621), none of these modifications were contested. The Property at Issue Phase IV is a 29.08-acre subdivision within an area of the Miromar Lakes community known as the Peninsula. Located within Basin 6, Phase IV is the last phase of development approved by the conceptual permit for residential development in the Peninsula. All prior Peninsula phases have been permitted and developed, or are in the process of development. Prior phases were permitted based on their consistency with the conceptual permit, and none were challenged by third parties. The area under Miromar's requested permit in the instant case was conceptually authorized for single-family residential development. This is confirmed by language in the 1999 permit, which describes the conceptual proposal for Basin 6 as "includ[ing] 639.7 acres of residential, golf course, and mixed-used [sic] development." Jt. Ex. 3, p. 275. The permit also provides that each of the four sub-basins in Basin 6 should "have a water quality structure that provides treatment for the first one inch of stormwater runoff from the sub-basin . . . and that attenuation for Basin 6 is achieved onsite via the proposed sub-basin lakes and also by an existing 244.2-acre borrow lake." Id. While the 1999 permit establishes standards for flood control elevations, minimum lot elevations, and discharge rates, more specific development guidance is not provided. When the conceptual permit was issued, Basin 6 contained one former mining pit dredged from uplands to be used as a man-made lake for recreational purposes. A second mining pit, later converted to a lake, continued mining operations until 2006. The following year, the District authorized the two borrow lakes to be connected by a series of channels and canals, forming a privately-owned, 660-acre waterbody now known as Lake 5/6. Alico's property includes Lake 5, which makes up the northern portion of Lake 5/6, while Lake 6 to the south, owned by the Miromar Lakes Community Development District, is surrounded by Miromar's development. Alico has an easement over portions of Lake 6 for recreational uses under a Lake Use Agreement. Because the two connected lakes are to be used only for recreation and attenuation purposes, Lake 5/6 is designated as Class III waters and cannot be used for stormwater treatment. It is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or an Impaired Florida Waterbody. Lake 5/6 discharges over a control weir into an un- channeled slough system known as the Stewart Cypress Slough. The water travels several miles through the slough system, passes several intervening properties that also discharge waters into the slough, and then runs underneath I-75. It eventually reaches the Estero River, an OFW and Impaired Florida Waterbody, which flows into the Estero Bay, an OFW. There is no direct discharge of waters from Lake 5/6 to the Estero River. The evidence shows that the project will not increase the overall discharge rate from the control weir for Lake 5/6. In February 2013, the District approved another Miromar application, known as Phase III, which authorized the third phase of development within the same peninsula where the Phase IV project will be located. That development contains two wet detention structures (Lakes 1 and 3) that will also service the Phase IV project. The Phase III permit was issued using the 1999 rules and regulations and was not contested. The Application The Original Application On November 25, 2014, the District issued its notice of intent to issue Miromar a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a stormwater system serving 29.08 acres of residential development that included multi-family residences, single-family residences, 49 boat slips, and road construction. Phase IV is a very small portion of the 1,481-acre development approved in the conceptual permit. The project is located on Via Salerno Way and Via Cassina Court within Basin 6. Construction was originally proposed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3. There is an approved Master Plan for stormwater management facilities within the project area. The site was previously cleared and filled and no wetlands are located on the site. The original construction in Sub-Basin 1 consisted of a roadway, 22 single-family residential lots, and stormwater conveyance facilities. Also included were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of the Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater within that Sub-Basin flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 1) located in Phase III north of the site. The wet detention area provides the required water quality treatment volume for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The original proposed construction in Sub-Basin 3 consisted of a roadway, 11 single-family residential lots, and 16 multi-family buildings with associated internal roadway, parking areas, and stormwater treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities. Also included within the original plans were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater runoff within Sub-Basin 3 flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 3) located in Phase III north of the site. The original application included a request to increase the surface area of Lake 3 by approximately 0.1 acre and to construct three dry detention areas within the multi-family development area. The wet and dry detention areas provide the required water quality treatment for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The Revised Project After the case was referred to DOAH, by letter dated June 8, 2015, Miromar's project engineer provided the District with proposed changes to the site plan, to be used at the final hearing then scheduled to begin on June 24, 2015, which include the replacement of 16 multi-family buildings and driveways on Via Cassina Court with 23 single-family residential lots; removal of the 16 multi-family boat docks located at the southern end of Via Cassina Court; reducing the number of boat docks to 45 single-family docks; relocation of the three dry detention areas shown on the proposed site plan; and clarification of the lot grading cross-section to ensure that stormwater runoff from the development will be directed to the stormwater management system and not Lake 5/6. Updated plans, drawings, and specifications, and new water quality calculations accompanied the letter and were intended to replace original Exhibits 2.0 and 2.3 of the permit. See Jt. Ex. JA-1, pp. 244- 257. The changes resulted in a continuance of the final hearing and Alico's filing of an Amended Petition. By amendment at final hearing, Miromar removed the 45 single-family docks. The June 8 letter states that the changes will not increase pollution or reduce the efficiency of the stormwater management system. Miromar acknowledges that some of these changes were to resolve concerns raised by Alico. Miromar now seeks approval of the Phase IV permit, incorporating the changes proposed by the June 8 letter and those agreed to at the final hearing. Because there was no requirement to provide a site- specific nutrient loading analysis when the 1999 permit was issued -- this analysis was not yet formally developed -- the District did not require, and Miromar did not submit, such an analysis with its application. Under the conceptual permit, Miromar was required to provide treatment for one inch of stormwater runoff in Basin 6. Relying on this condition, Miromar applied that treatment to the Phase IV permit. This results in the treatment of 7.09 acre- feet of stormwater for the basin. After the construction shown in the permit, the stormwater management system will treat 9.21 acre-feet, or more than is required under the 1999 permit. The District established that new flood routing calculations for the project were not necessary because Miromar has set elevations for the water control structures in Lakes 1 and 3 at the same level as the road elevations, and the project connects to an existing surface water treatment system. This provides reasonable assurance that the project will not cause flooding despite having no calculations from the applicant. Alico's Objections Although couched in different terms, Alico's concerns can be generally summarized as follows. First, it contends the application should be treated as a major modification of the conceptual permit and that Miromar must satisfy current rules and regulations, and not those in effect in 1999. Second, it contends both the original and revised applications are inconsistent with the conceptual permit and must be treated as a new design, subject to all current rules and regulations. Third, even though Miromar agreed at hearing to revise its permit to address certain errors/deficiencies identified by Alico's experts, Alico contends no revisions can be made at this stage of the proceeding, and that a new application must be filed with the District and the review process started anew. Is the Application a Major or Minor Modification? If the modification is minor, Miromar is required only to satisfy applicable rules for issuance of a permit when the conceptual permit was issued. Rule 62-330.315 and AH section 6.2.1 provide guidance in resolving this issue. Rule 62-330.315(2)(g) defines a minor modification as one "that do[es] not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase permitted off-site discharge, increase the environmental impact of the project, decrease required retention, decrease required detention, decrease required flood control elevations, or decrease pollution removal efficiency." The rule also provides that the "factors that will be considered in determining whether a change is minor are described in section 6.2.1 of Volume I [of the Applicant's Handbook]." Section 6.2.1(d) lists a series of 14 factors to be considered in determining whether a modification will cause more than minor changes under rule 62-330.315(2). None of the factors is dispositive alone, and the presence of any single one of the factors does not necessarily mean that a modification is major. All 14 factors are considered together in determining whether a modification is major. Using the factors set forth in rule 62-330.315(2), in conjunction with section 6.2.1, the District reviewed the application to determine whether it was a minor modification. Based on these criteria, the District determined that the application qualified as a minor modification of a conceptual permit and that it satisfied applicable rules for issuance of a permit for this subsequent phase of the project. Alico contends that the initial review by a District staffer was only cursory and was in no way a meaningful assessment. Even if this is true, subsequent reviews by District staff, including witness Waterhouse, who supervises the ERP Bureau, was a signatory on the 1999 permit, and has reviewed thousands of ERP applications, confirmed that the application, as revised on June 8 and at final hearing, meets the criteria for a minor modification. The testimony of District witnesses Waterhouse and Waters has been accepted as being the most credible on this issue. In its review of the original application, the District considered the inclusion of boat docks as the only aspect of the application that made the project a major modification. In all other respects, the District determined that the modification would not cause more than minor changes. With the removal of the boat docks, the District concluded that the application did not substantially alter the design of the activities or the conditions of the conceptual approval permit. Alico's expert, who has never performed a similar consistency analysis on any project, testified that several of the 14 factors in section 6.2.1(d) might be affected. But he opined with certitude that factor 2 is implicated by the Phase IV permit. Factor 2 comes into play when there is an "[i]ncrease in proposed impervious and semi-impervious surfaces more than 10 percent or 0.5 acres, whichever is less, unless the activities were permitted with stormwater treatment and flood attenuation capability sufficient to meet the permitting requirements for the proposed modification." By citing only one factor, the expert implicitly conceded that the other 13 factors are not present, thus weighing towards a finding of consistency. Alico's expert focused only on the first part of factor 2 by calculating the impervious area of the project, as he did not believe the conceptual permit approved a master stormwater management system capable of sufficiently meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the Phase IV project. However, the more persuasive evidence is that the Master Plan in the 1999 permit is capable of meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the project. Therefore, factor 2 is not implicated by the Phase IV permit. Even if the factor were present, it would be insufficient to outweigh the other 13 factors and render the project a major modification of the 1999 permit. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the District may consider as minor the revised application. Consistency with the Conceptual Permit A consistency analysis is conducted under two related rules. First, rule 62-330.315 identifies when a subsequent permit is either a major or minor modification of a prior conceptual permit. As found in the previous section of this Recommended Order, the modification is minor. Second, rule 62- 330.056 provides a rebuttable presumption that subsequent consistent development phases are likely to meet the applicable rules and regulations if the factors listed in subsections (7)(a) through (7)(d) are met. The primary factors for consistency comparison are identified in subsection (7)(a) as "the size, location and extent of the activities proposed, the type and nature of the activities, percent imperviousness, allowable discharge and points of discharge, location and extent of wetland and other surface water impacts, mitigation plans implemented or proposed, control elevations, extent of stormwater reuse, detention and retention volumes, and the extent of flood elevations." Subsections (7)(b) and (c) provide that in order to have consistency, there can be no changes to state water quality standards, in this case the standards for Lake 5/6, or special basin criteria. There is no evidence that applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria have changed. Finally, subsection (7)(d) requires that there can be no substantive changes to the site characteristics. Except for the conceptual permit, there is no requirement that the District compare the Phase IV permit with any other permit. The District views the location and the land use type of the project as the two most important criteria for determining consistency. As required by the rule, the District also compares the environmental impacts of the modification to the conceptual permit, control elevations, and discharge rates. The District credibly determined there is no inconsistency. While some site characteristics in Basin 6 have obviously changed over the last 16 years, the District's review found no substantive changes that would affect whether the design concepts approved in the conceptual approval permit can continue to be reasonably expected to meet the conditions for authorizing construction of future phases. The District credibly determined that the activities in Phase IV, as revised, were similar to or less intensive than those authorized in the conceptual approval permit and may actually provide a net benefit to Lake 5/6. Alico contends that a meaningful consistency analysis was not conducted by the District staffer who reviewed the original application. But subsequent reviews by witnesses Waterhouse and Waters confirmed that Phase IV, as revised, is consistent with the conceptual permit based upon the rule and AH criteria. Besides the District's review, Miromar's expert testified that Phase IV is consistent in land use as a single- family residential development. He also testified that the Phase IV permit was consistent with the 1999 permit in size and location; it maintained the same allowable rate of stormwater discharge; and it maintained required flood control elevations. He further testified that the Phase IV permit did not change the mitigation plans, permitted stormwater reuse, flood routings, or storm stages provided by the 1999 permit. This testimony has been credited in resolving the issue. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Phase IV land uses are the same as contemplated in the conceptual permit and the already-approved prior phases of Miromar Lakes, and the new permit is consistent with the conceptual permit. Therefore, Miromar is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that it meets the applicable rules and standards in place when the 1999 permit was issued. Alico failed to rebut this presumption. Revisions and Amendments at the Final Hearing During the final hearing, Alico's experts identified several errors and/or deficiencies in the design of Miromar's project, described below, that should be addressed before a permit can be issued. Miromar agrees with some of these concerns and asks that they be addressed through revisions incorporated into its permit. The District also concurs with these changes. The record shows that they are appropriate, minor in nature, and do not change the character of the permit. There is no evidence that Alico is prejudiced by allowing these revisions. Alico's expert testified that the Phase IV permit does not provide sufficient information regarding the soils on the Phase IV site. At hearing, Miromar agreed that any unsuitable soils discovered during construction would be excavated and removed and correctly disposed of in a landfill or other uplands. This is the common method of dealing with soils in Lee County, where it is not unusual to find unsuitable soils during construction. A special condition to this effect should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Through a series of treatment ponds, Miromar proposes to treat nearly all stormwater that falls on-site prior to its discharge to off-site properties. Alico's expert testified that the lot grading detail drawings inaccurately reflect the elevations of certain portions of the lots and can result in runoff from some lots being routed to Lake 5/6, instead of Lakes 1 and 3. Miromar agrees with this concern and represented that the intent of the June 8 letter is that drainage for all lots, except for the portion of lots within the 20-foot Lake Maintenance Easement (LME), which surrounds the project on three sides, be directed to the front of the lots toward the street, and then to the treatment ponds. Water that falls naturally within the LME will be treated by attenuation in Lake 5/6 prior to off-site discharge. Miromar also agrees to submit new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a new Typical Lot Grading Detail and to update its June 8 plans to reflect proposed lot grading elevations consistent with the lot detail. Alico's expert acknowledged that roof gutters are an additional solution, and they should be installed on all roofs in order to direct runoff to the front yards and then to the stormwater system. Finally, to ensure proper lot drainage, Miromar agrees that the secondary drainage pipes to convey runoff from roofs, gutters, and grassed areas will have a minimum size of six inches. The District agrees that these changes will improve water quality and ensure that all stormwater is properly captured and directed into the stormwater system. A special condition requiring these revisions should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Alico's expert also testified that the plans should include a requirement that Miromar follow best management practices (BMPs) for the replacement of a control structure in Lake 3, which serves as a stormwater treatment pond. General Condition 3 already addresses this issue by requiring Miromar to use BMPs that prevent adverse impacts to the water resources and adjacent lands. In addition, the June 8 letter provides plans for BMPs for work at the site, including Lake 3. Although the District found that reasonable assurances were provided by General Condition 3 and the June 8 letter, to ensure clarity, a special condition should be included in the final permit that requires the use of BMPs for all construction, including the replacement of an old boat ramp and the control structure in Lake 3. Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. Alico's expert opined that control structures CS-1 (Lake 1) and WQS-1.3 (Lake 3), which have a circular bleeder orifice with a four-inch diameter, should be limited to a bleeder orifice of 3.7 inches in diameter. Although the District found reasonable assurances existed with four-inch bleeder orifices, Special Condition 3 should be modified to reflect a 3.7-inch bleeder for these control structures. This will ensure that before being discharged, the water leaving the two control structures receives the appropriate amount of water quality treatment. Both Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. With the removal of all docks and an old boat ramp, Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 require modification, or deletion if necessary, to eliminate obsolete language relating to the docks and ramp and to add language to provide that construction and operation of the docks shown on the plans, specifications, and drawings are not authorized. Miromar and the District agree to these revisions. Other Concerns Alico's expert contended that under current District rules, Miromar is required to provide stormwater treatment equal to the greater of (a) one inch multiplied by the total project acreage, and (b) 2.5 inches multiplied by the project's impervious area. However, Alico did not pursue this issue in its PRO, probably because its expert agrees that the current design of the project meets District rule criteria for one inch of water quality treatment. Alico's expert also contends that Miromar is required to provide an additional 50 percent of stormwater treatment above the one-inch requirement. This is contrary to the conceptual permit, which does not require additional stormwater treatment. Also, the requirement does not apply when there is no direct discharge of stormwater into an OFW. Even so, Miromar voluntarily agreed to increase the stormwater treatment capacity for Phase IV, which results in excess treatment in Basin 6 greater than 50 percent above the treatment required for the Phase IV area. Alico argues that the additional treatment is illusory, as it relies on additional treatment from an adjoining phase, and not Phase IV. Even if this is true, Alico's expert admits that the current one inch treatment meets the requirements of the rule for issuance of a permit. Alico's expert contended that the Phase IV permit allows the bulkhead to be developed on more than 40 percent of total shorelines, in contravention of AH section 5.4.2, Volume II, which restricts a bulkhead to no more than 40 percent of the lake perimeter. However, Miromar's expert established that the Phase IV hardened shorelines would comprise less than 40 percent of the total shoreline in the Phase IV area and therefore comply with this requirement. His testimony was not credibly refuted. Even though there is no direct discharge from the project into the Estero River or Estero Bay, and the project will not result in higher discharge rates from the overall system outfall from Lake 5/6, based on water samples taken in August 2015, Alico's expert opined that the project will cause a discharge of excess nutrients into an OFW. The evidence shows, however, that these water samples were taken after heavy rains when the expert observed water flowing upstream from the slough into Lake 5/6, rather than downstream. The expert also admitted he had done no testing, analysis, or modeling demonstrating that any pollutant would even reach the Estero River. He failed to take a baseline sample of water quality for any nutrients for which the slough, Estero River, or Estero Bay may be impaired, and he conceded that it was possible that there was no net discharge from Lake 5/6 into the slough during the time of his testing. There is insufficient evidence to sustain this allegation. Other alleged deficiencies or errors in the application, as revised, that are not addressed in this Recommended Order have been considered and found to be without merit. ERP and Public Interest Criteria The criteria the District uses when reviewing an ERP application are contained in the AH and rules 62-330.301 and 62-330.302. In addition, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. § 373.414, Fla. Stat.; AH § 10.2.3. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the ERP comply with all applicable ERP permitting criteria. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Miromar's application, as revised, for a permit modification, subject to the following additional conditions: That the plans, drawings, and specifications submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 244-53, be used as Exhibit 2.0 of the permit. That the water quality calculations submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 254-57, be used as Exhibit 2.3 of the permit. That Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 be revised or eliminated to remove obsolete language relating to the removal of the boat docks and boat ramp. That Special Condition 10 be revised to require that all construction, including the removal of the boat ramp and replacement of Control Structure No. 3, be conducted using BMPs. That a new special condition be added to reflect that the construction and operation of docks will not be authorized by the permit. That a new special condition be added with new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a revised Typical Lot Grading Detail and address the following: the project shall be constructed to ensure that stormwater from the project, except stormwater from within the LME, is routed to the stormwater treatment system prior to discharge to Lake 5/6; the lot grading on all lots shall be in accordance with the revised lot grading to reflect the high point of the lots located adjacent to the LME to ensure that runoff from the lots is directed to Lakes 1 and 3; that the revised lot grading require the installation of six-inch secondary drainage pipes; and that roof gutters be installed on all roofs to ensure that runoff from the residential lots is directed to the stormwater treatment system. That a new special condition be added to address unsuitable soils encountered during construction and to ensure that they are removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. That Special Condition 3, relating to discharge facilities, be revised to reflect that a 3.7-inch circular orifice will be installed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3, rather than a four-inch orifice shown in the existing plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Antonacci, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 620 101 Riverfront Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34205-8841 (eServed) Brian J. Accardo, General Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Martin L. Steinberg, Esquire Hogan Lovells US, LLP Suite 2700 600 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3085 (eServed) Timothy J. Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed)
