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 issues presented for decision in this case are: whether Martin County should be granted the re-issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W for the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant and associated wells; and (2) whether Martin County should be granted Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B for the construction of Well No. 10 of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant, pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James W. Slusher, Jr., and his wife, Diane L. Slusher, own a residential lot located in unincorporated Martin County at 2376 SW Ranch Trail, Stuart, Florida 34997. On the lot is a single family home. The size of the residential lot is approximately 2.25 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Slusher purchased the subject residential lot and home in September of 1994 from Mrs. Stella Kassinger. Mrs. Kassinger and her late husband (the “original owners”) had the home built on the residential lot in approximately 1980. When the original owners built the home, they had a hole or “pit” dug in the rear portion of the lot. From aerial photographs taken at the time (1979-1980), and based upon the common practice in the area, it appears that the material from the “pit” was spread on-site to provide additional elevation for, and to minimize the potential for flooding of, the home and driveway that were constructed on the lot. Thus, the original “design function” of the “pit” was to provide fill for construction. The original owners thereafter allowed the “pit” to accumulate water and stocked it with fish so that Mr. Kassinger could use it recreationally as a fishing pond. The “design function” of the original “pit” was thus changed so that it would serve as a recreational amenity on the property. During the subsequent 14 years that the original owners lived in the home, they did nothing further to alter or improve the fishing pond. Over the years, the area immediately around the fishing pond became heavily vegetated and was used from time to time by various wild birds and animals. The fishing pond was used by the original owners for fishing and for observing the wildlife it attracted. After purchasing the home, Mr. Slusher also stocked the fishing pond with various fish over the years so that he and his family could continue to use it recreationally. The fishing pond continued to be used by the Slushers for fishing, for observing wildlife, and as a swimming area for their dogs. Currently, the overall dimensions of the fishing pond are approximately 90 feet wide, by 122 feet long, by 10 feet deep at its deepest part, when filled to the level that was natural prior to the operation of Water Well No. 10. Potable water for the Slusher home is obtained from a well drilled on the property, not from the public water system of the County. The Slusher well is located approximately 33 feet from the home. It is attached by PVC pipe to a pump located next to the home. The original owners caused the well to be drilled. The record in this case does not contain any persuasive evidence regarding the details of the Slusher residential water well. Specifically absent are such details as the depth to which the well was originally drilled, the material from which the well tube was made (i.e., cast iron or PVC), and the current physical condition of the sub-surface portions of the well. Mr. Slusher has not done anything to repair or replace the well since he and his wife purchased the home. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed a petition with the SFWMD challenging the issuance of Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B, and the "use of the well." On November 3, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed an amended petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W and Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B. Martin County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, established in 1925 pursuant to Section 7.43, Florida Statutes, and Section 1, Chapter 10180, Laws of Florida. SFWMD is an independent state agency, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. SFWMD originally issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on April 15, 1993. The “water use permit” was for wells and associated equipment at the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant (“Tropical Farms WTP”). SFWMD re-issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on March 14, 1996. The re-issued “water use permit” allowed additional wells to be drilled and additional draws of water by the County at the Tropical Farms WTP. One of the additional wells included in the re-issued water use permit was “Well No. 10.” SFWMD issued Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B to the County on March 28, 1996, allowing the construction of Well No. 10 at the Tropical Farms WTP. In accordance with the restrictions imposed by the water well construction permit, the County drilled Well No. 10 on a site located at least 100 feet in distance from the fishing pond on the Slushers’ property. The physical location of Well No. 10 is essentially “adjacent to” the Slusher property. County Well No. 10 is approximately 120 feet deep and draws water from the surficial aquifer. It commenced operation in December of 1996. It is uncontested that the operation of the well field, especially County Well No. 10, has caused drawdowns of the pond level and of the groundwater in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The MODFLOW model used by the County in support of its application indicates a maximum drawdown of 7.4 feet. The persuasive expert opinion evidence in this case indicates that maximum draw downs of 7 or 8 feet would be expected in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The County has acknowledged that the operation of Well No. 10 has had a significant effect on the drawdown of the water table in the area of the pond. County Well No. 10 appears to have been constructed in a manner consistent with the applicable rules. The well was properly drilled and grouted, the correct materials were used, and the well was constructed in a manner that did not result in harm to the water resources. The water use permit was issued prior to the well construction permit, as is appropriate. Although permitted originally in 1993 and again in 1996, the Tropical Farms WTP did not begin regular operations until June of 1997. It is now part of a consolidated system which includes four other water treatment plants, all operated by the County for the purpose of obtaining and providing potable water to the public county-wide. In support of its applications for the issuance and re-issuance of the water use permit, the County provided SFWMD with so-called “MODFLOW calculations” done by a professional engineering firm retained by the County. MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey and is considered the standard for assessment of ground water resource impacts. The results of the three-dimensional MODFLOW modeling showed that the drawdown effect on the water table of the proposed wells for the Tropical Farms WTP would be unlikely to cause any adverse effect on typical wells used by homeowners, even if the latter were located within the same small “square” as one of the County’s wells. Prior to the commencement of the operation of Well No. 10 by the County, the water level in the fishing pond on the Slusher property would vary only a few inches up or down during the course of a typical year. After the County began to operate County Well No. 10, Mr. Slusher observed and videotaped much greater variations in the water level in the fishing pond on his property. After County Well No. 10 began to operate, the pond water level dropped to the extent that it would become virtually empty of water from time to time. At other times, however, the fishing pond would refill with water, such as in September of 1999, and in August of 2001. When the water in Mr. Slusher's pond gets very low, it has an adverse impact on the fish in the pond; the fish die because they have insufficient water. Mr. Slusher has not done anything over the years since the operation of County Well No. 10 began to attempt to prevent the variations in the water level of the fishing pond, or to mitigate the occurrence of such variations. The County (together with the rest of southern Florida) has experienced several periods of severe drought over the past few years. Yet other “ponds” on other properties in the same neighborhood as the Slusher property have not experienced the significant variance in water level that has occurred in the fishing pond on the Slusher property since the County began drawing water from Well No. 10. The County does not operate Well No. 10 continuously. Rather, it has attempted to reduce its use of the well. SFWMD has never issued any notice to the County that any mitigation was required on the Slusher property pursuant to the limiting conditions of the water use permit. The County does not dispute that its operation of Well No. 10 has contributed to a drawdown in the level of the water table in the surrounding area, nor that such a drawdown has contributed to the variance in the water level in the pond on the Slusher property. Indeed, the drawdown of the water table generally was fully anticipated and predicted in the materials submitted by the County to SFWMD. The use of County Well No. 10 to draw water from the surficial aquifer is not the only factor contributing to the variances in the water level of the fishing pond on the Slusher property. Evaporation and natural variances in the level of the water table also contribute to changes in the water level of the fishing pond. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay that is mined for a variety of uses, including the “lining” or “waterproofing” of reservoirs, lagoons, ponds, ditches, and other man-made bodies of water in order to seal them and to prevent or minimize seepage or percolation of the water into the ground. Even repeated wetting and drying of the clay does not reduce its effectiveness. Bentonite is widely used and has not been found to have any harmful or toxic effects on either human beings or wildlife. In some applications, bentonite clay is a superior lining material when compared to a man-made liner, such as a plastic or polymer sheet. In a small scale application where the volume of water in a lined pond is relatively low, a man- made liner could be forced away (“balloon up”) from the bottom of the pond by the pressure of a rising natural water table. Lining the pond on the Slusher property with Bentonite (or some similar clay) would create a virtually impervious layer that would separate the water in the pond on the Slusher property from the surrounding water table. With such a lining in place, County Well No. 10 would have no significant effect on the water level of the pond. The water level in the pond on the Slusher property could also be stabilized at or near its normal level prior to the operation of County Well No. 10 by installation of a water supply that would add water to the pond whenever the pond dropped below a specified level. Mr. Slusher first complained to the County about the effect of the County’s operation of Well No. 10 in 1997, when he spoke with Jim Mercurio, a County water utilities employee. Mr. Slusher also complained at about the same time to SFWMD, which resulted in a “field investigation” in September 1997. At that time, Mr. Slusher complained about the lowering of the water level in the pond on his property, but specifically denied any adverse effect on the water from his residential water well. Mr. Slusher began to complain about the water quality and water pressure in his residential water well sometime in 2000. The water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well now has an unpleasant odor, taste, and color, and the water causes rust stains. The water pressure of the water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well is less than it was before the construction of County Well No. 10. The rust stains, odor, taste, and color are all due to iron oxidation of the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. The County regularly experiences similar problems with iron oxidation in the water that it draws from its own wells in the same area as the Slusher property, which the County must treat at the Tropical Farms WTP. The problem of iron oxidation (and accompanying odor and taste deficiencies) in the water is thus not unique to the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. Iron oxidation in well water is not harmful to human beings. The evidence in this case does not include any evidence of any testing of the water quality of the water coming from the Slusher residential well. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence as to the current condition of the sub- surface portions of the Slusher residential well. Further, the evidence regarding the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or the water pressure of the Slusher residential water well is both anecdotal and speculative, and is not a persuasive basis for determining the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or water pressure of the subject residential well. Specifically, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the water quality and water pressure deterioration complained of by Mr. Slusher are a result of the operation of County Well No. 10. Such deterioration could be caused by other circumstances or conditions, including the uninspected sub-surface condition of Slusher's residential water well. The water quality and water pressure problems currently experienced by Mr. Slusher could be minimized or eliminated by connecting his residence to the residential water supply system operated by the County. A branch of the County's public water system already exists in Mr. Slusher's neighborhood within a few hundred feet of his property. The application and information provided to SFWMD by the County were determined by SFWMD to provide “reasonable assurances” that existing legal users would not be adversely affected by the proposed wells or water treatment facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B and re- issuing Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to Martin County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard K. Heims, Esquire Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. 618 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 5 Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
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 Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 21st day of March, 2014.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, should be issued water use permit 204387.03, to withdraw groundwater from the wells on its property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for the permitting of consumptive water use within its area of geographical jurisdiction. The Respondent, Hi Hat, is a family owned farming and ranching operation in eastern Sarasota County with water wells on its property. The Intervenor, City of Sarasota, is a municipality in Sarasota County which operates wells in the general area of those operated by Hi Hat, and which has an agreement with Hi Hat for the latter's use of treated wastewater pumped from the city's treatment plant to Hi Hat Ranch. The Petitioner, Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr., is a property owner and resident of Sarasota County whose property is located near the Hi Hat Ranch, and whose potable water is drawn from a well on his property which utilizes both the surficial and intermediate aquifers which are penetrated by the wells on Hi Hat Ranch. Hi Hat Ranch consists of 11,000 acres owned by Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, the family owned business which operates it, and an additional 3,227 acres leased from the City of Sarasota. Agricultural operations, including citrus farming, truck farming, sod farming, and grazing have been conducted on the ranch since the mid 1940's. In February, 1990, Hi Hat applied to the District for a permit to withdraw and use water from some 14 wells located on its property. It requested an annual average of 6,267,000 gallons per day, (gpd), and a peak monthly rate of 32, 668,000 gpd. Upon receipt by the District, the application was assigned a number, (204387.03), and was submitted for evaluation by the District staff for conformity with applicable District rules and policies. When the staff evaluation was completed, the District issued a staff report and proposed staff agency action in which it indicated its intention to issue a permit authorizing water to be drawn from the wells at a rate of 6,570,000 gpd, average annual, a peak monthly rate of 14,300,000 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 5,210,000 gpd. In conducting its evaluation, the District staff relied upon the District's Basis of Review For Water Use Permit Applications which contains within it the provision for use of a "water use model" in assessing the need and appropriateness of water withdrawal amounts. This model, known as the Blaney- Criddle Model considers numerous factors in the evaluation, including rainfall, soil characteristics, irrigation methods used, and proposed crop types, all in an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of the applicant's supplemental water needs. Hi Hat's application was evaluated primarily by Marie Jackson, a Hydrologist III employed by the District, and an expert in hydrology, who has, over the years, reviewed between 350 and 400 permit applications, of which approximately 90 percent have been for agriculture. She is, therefore, quite familiar with the specifics of agricultural water use needs. Her evaluation of Hi Hat's application was done in the same manner as the others she has done and utilized the same tests, measurements and factors for consideration in arriving at her conclusion. In its application, a renewal with modification sought to increase average annual quantities due to a change in crop plans, Hi Hat indicated that its criteria for water use was based on certain agricultural uses and application rates. These included: low volume under tree spray irrigation of 778 acres of citrus at an application rate of 17.2 inches/year plus one inch/year for frost and freeze protection. open ditch irrigation of 135 acres of sod at an application rate of 30 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 1,367 acres of improved pasture at an average application rate of 26.6 inches/year. overhead spray irrigation of 1,200 acres of improved pasture at an application rate of 20.3 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of spring peppers at an application rate of 30.0 inches/crop, and open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of fall peppers at an application rate of 45.2 inches/crop. Applicant also stipulated that the peak monthly quantities that it requested would be utilized for pasture, sod and citrus irrigation during the month of May. The proposed maximum quantities were for frost and freeze protection of citrus only. In January, 1989, Hi Hat entered into a contract with the City of Sarasota under which the City was obligated to deliver reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment plant to a "header" located on the ranch which thereafter distributes the water through pipes to "turnouts" located at various high points on the property. From these, the water is then discharged into a system of ridges and furrows for distribution of the water across the needed area. The reclaimed water is used to irrigate approximately 5,403 acres of ranchland. The Contract provides for minimum and maximum amounts of water to be delivered as well as for water quality standards which must be met. In periods of adequate rainfall, when irrigation is not required, any treated wastewater which is not needed is stored in a 185 million gallon holding pond on City property located adjacent to the ranch. When needed, water can be fed into the wastewater distribution system described above from the holding pond. This reclaimed water, whether from the pond or direct from the header, can also be utilized to irrigate citrus crops, but this requires a filter system which has not yet been able to operate properly. Therefore, no reclaimed water has yet to be utilized for citrus irrigation on the ranch. At an average annual flow of 6.2 million gallons per day, the pond has the capacity to hold enough treated water for almost 30 days. Not all wells on Hi Hat Ranch are active wells. Several of the wells are classified as standby wells which are intended to be used only to back up the reclaimed water delivery system and are located, normally, beside the "turnouts." In the event the reclaimed water is not available from the city, the standby wells can be utilized to provide water to the ridge and furrow system used to irrigate pasture land. The standby wells are numbers 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Well number 5, also identified as a standby well in the staff report and in the draft permit was mistakenly so identified. The draft permit contains several special conditions which impact on the drawing of water under the terms of the permit. Significant among these is Special Condition 33 which prohibits the withdrawal of water from any of the standby wells unless the reclaimed water supply from the city is interrupted. Special Condition 27 requires the installation of a flow meter on any standby well that becomes active as a result of permanent discontinuance of the reclaimed water supply. With regard to flow meters, Special Condition 22 requires flow meters on all of Hi Hat's wells. Ms. Jackson, however, indicated this was in error and has recommended that the standby wells be deleted from that Special Condition. When that is done, only those wells actively producing water on a regular basis would require the installation of flow meters. In its analysis of the application for permit, the District staff considered several factors pertinent to the impact the well would have on the water supply in the area and its effect on other users. These factors include hydrologic impacts, well condition, the history of water use at the ranch, the reliability of the reclaimed water system and its ability to provide a uniform source, and the city's water reuse policy. Addressing each individually, and starting with the hydrologic impact of the withdrawal of the requested amounts, the District considered the nature of the existing wells and how they are constructed and maintained. The District assumed, because the data regarding the construction of the existing wells was incomplete and insufficient to properly disclose the status of casing on each well, that they were shallow cased. As a result, the calculations incorporating this assumption indicate a situation that would occur in its most aggravated form. The parties agreed that Hi Hat's wells are shallow cased and probably go no deeper than 90 feet. To determine, as much as possible, the projected drawdowns in the surficial and intermediate aquifers that might be expected if Hi Hat withdrew the amounts of water proposed, the District utilized the "MODFLOW" computer model which factors in simultaneous peak withdrawals from all 14 of the wells along with a 90 day no rainfall drought condition. This, too, contributes to a worst case scenario, and the resultant figures are considered to be conservative estimates of the hydrologic impact of the water withdrawal. Notwithstanding, the application of this computer model resulted in the indication that, as to the surficial aquifer, the drawdown at Mr. Bishop's property located approximately one half mile from the ranch border, would be no more than .055 feet. Since normal fluctuations in the surficial aquifer during the course of the year can be as much as 6 feet, the projected drawdown as a result of Hi Hat's withdrawals was considered insignificant. Applying the same assumptions and utilizing the same computer model as it relates to the intermediate aquifer resulted in an indication of a drawdown of no more than 2.3 feet at Mr. Bishop's property. Since annual fluctuation in the intermediate aquifer can range from 15 to 20 feet normally, the District considers that any reduction of less than five feet in the intermediate aquifer is insignificant. The permit held by Hi hat currently allows for the withdrawal of more water than would be withdrawn under the proposed permit as conditioned and is consistent with the proposed reduction in allowable withdrawals. Considering that factor, as well as the prohibition against withdrawals from standby wells as long as reclaimed water is available, the actual impact of the water withdrawals consistent with the proposed permit would be substantially less than the computed prediction which includes production from all wells. Drawdown contours are defined across the entire effected area. One of the levels is a 4 foot contour, and when a computer simulation indicates that the 4 foot contour includes a withdrawal previously or otherwise permitted, the District will generally conduct a cumulative impact analysis. In this case, however, since there was only one golf course well within the area circumscribed by the 4 foot contour line, and since this withdrawal was too small to have effected an evaluation, it was not done. The condition of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch has some bearing on whether or not the application for additional withdrawal of water should be granted. These wells are almost 30 years old, having been drilled in the 1960's. As a result, there is little information available regarding their construction detail. This is not necessarily unusual for agricultural wells, and there is evidence that there are many similar wells in use within the District. The reason for this is that at the time the wells were drilled, information regarding their depth, casing and other matters were not required to be kept or reported. However, there is no indication the wells are in any way violative of well construction criteria and their use has been authorized continuously since 1977. When he prepared Hi Hat's application, Mr. Turner included much the same information regarding the wells as pertains as to depth and diameter which he had previously submitted in earlier applications and which had been accepted. In each case, casing depths had been reported as unknown. Notwithstanding the information contained in some old well logs relative to only a few of Hi Hat's wells, this information is in no way definitive and it is difficult to describe anything specific with the majority of these wells. Nonetheless, as already found, it is stipulated that most are approximately 90 feet deep. It is reasonable to assume that the existing wells, however, are cased only to a shallow depth, and that in many cases, the existing casings have corroded away, either totally or in part. This can cause an intermixing of water from the separate aquifers, but whether this is in fact happening depends upon factors specific to that particular well. Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that as a result of the condition of Hi Hat's wells, any degradation is occurring in the more potable, surficial aquifer as a result of intermixing with water from the intermediate aquifer on or around the Hi Hat Ranch. In Ms. Jackson's opinion, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict it, the amount of drawdown which would occur as a result of maximum pumping at Hi Hat Ranch would not be sufficient to cause poorer quality water from the Floridan aquifer to percolate upward (upcone) into the better quality water of the two upper aquifers even during drought conditions. By the same token, there is no evidence that drawdown would encourage or permit salt water intrusion. Petitioner attempted to show by the records kept on the various Hi Hat wells that many of them have been abandoned and are no longer operative and should not be allowed to fall within the parameters of this permit. He testified clearly that over the years, the level of water in his potable water well has lowered and presumed that this was the result of increased water usage by other entities which draw from the aquifer into which his well is sunk. Water level, however, depends upon numerous factors, of which usage is only one. Others include recharging of the aquifer and the amount of rainfall and other recharge sources not only in the immediate area but across the large area which feeds the aquifer. Mr. Bishop did not present any evidence showing a causal connection between the lowering of the water in his well, or the degradation in water quality he claims to have experienced, and either the drawdown caused by Hi Hat's operation or by aquifer intermixing. He indicated, and it is not disputed, that within the past year, he has had to take measures to improve the water quality in his potable well, but, again, he has not presented any evidence to show this was caused by Hi Hat's ground water withdrawals. In its long range planning, the District intends to implement a program to rehabilitate old wells, and when that program is implemented, almost every agricultural well within the District may require recasing or redrilling. This program will not be implemented for several years, however. In an effort, however, to insure that all reasonable precautions are taken to see that approval of any petition for withdrawal does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water needs of the surrounding community, in its analysis of this application, and in all cases, the District makes certain assumptions when adequate empirical data is not available. In this case, pertaining to the unavailability of information regarding Hi Hat's wells, the District assumed that all wells were shallow cased, and this placed the application in the worst possible light. Shallow cased wells allow more upconing and aquifer intermixing. Nonetheless, the amount of water permitted to Hi Hat, even if not used, could impact on Mr. Bishop and other adjoining owner's use of additional water as a result of a possible change to their permitted quantities. However, to compensate for this, the District has also included a special condition, (#26), which requires Hi Hat to log all 14 of its wells within the term of the permit, (7 years), which will require at least 2 wells be done each year. The cost of that action will be between $800 and $2500 per well. Another condition, (#31), requires Hi Hat to look into any complaint from adjacent property owners regarding adverse impacts due to water withdrawal, to report the results of its inquiry to the District, and to mitigate, as much as possible, all adverse impacts due to its withdrawal. Mr. Bishop claimed, and introduced evidence purporting to demonstrate, that many of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch, which are covered by the permit applied for here, are no longer in use and have been abandoned. In response, Mr. Turner, who has been actively engaged in the ranch's operations for at least the past four years, indicates from his personal knowledge, that all 14 wells included in the permit applied for have been operated within the past two years, and all are capable of producing water. It is so found. Not all wells, however, have been operated at all times. Crop rotation and a varying need for groundwater has resulted in some wells not being used at some times. This is, of course, commonplace in agriculture and to be expected as a result of crop planning programs. Admittedly, an accurate figure for the amount of water which has been withdrawn from the 14 wells cannot be established because these wells do not have, and were not required to have, flow meters. Two of the wells were fitted with hour meters in January, 1989, but because the capacity of the pumps on those wells is variable, a precise estimate of volume pumped cannot be determined. The meters measured only the number of hours the pumps were in operation and not the amount of water passed through the pumps. Evidence was presented, however, to show that wells have been utilized at the ranch since the 1960's, and in 1977, some 14 years ago, following District implementation of a consumptive water use permit program, the ranch first applied for water withdrawal permits. These permits have been renewed as required and all water usage since the implementation of the program has been permitted. Turning to the reclaimed water supply, the delivery system, incorporating a program to pump reclaimed water from the treatment plant all the way back out to the ranch site, is subject to material failure and operator error, and either one can occur at any number of places along the system route. Each could result in interruption of the delivery of the reclaimed water to the ranch. The system is far more complex than would be the use of on-site wells for delivery of ground water. One two week shutdown in the system was occasioned by a major pipe failure as a result of pressure building up in the pipes. Were it not for the fact that a contractor was already at the ranch with replacement parts on hand to effect expeditious repair of the system, the shutdown could have lasted considerably longer than it did. This is not the only interruption, however. Several main line leaks and valve problems have caused the system to be shut down on several occasions for short periods of time. The filter system required for the water destined for the citrus area is problematical, and so far this area of the ranch has not received any reclaimed water in the 10 months the system has been in operation. Mr. Bishop argues that the wet weather holding pond is a solution to the reliability problems with the pipe line, but the pond has had problems of its own. Sand in the water, which comes from the holding pond, has been the primary difficulty in the filter system for the citrus area, and algae growth in that pond has the potential to create other filter problems. Delivery of the water from the pond is not accomplished by a gravity system, but instead, requires the use of pumps powered by an electric motor. In the event of a power failure, this source would be unavailable. Discounting all of the above, however, and assuming, arguendo, that all systems were in top operating condition, the fact remains that the delivery system from the pond to the distribution system is not adequate to supply the amount of water that would be necessary to have an effective freeze protection program. In any case, the reclaimed water supply is not the panacea for all water shortage problems experienced at Hi Hat Ranch. In the first place, the quality of the reclaimed water is generally lower than that of the groundwater which would come from wells on the ranch. Also, the City's treatment process does not remove from the water all the pollutants that are of concern to the farm operators. For one thing, total dissolved solids in the reclaimed water are considerably higher than in the ground water, and high dissolved solid levels can be harmful to citrus crops. In fact, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommends that citrus irrigation water not exceed total dissolved solid ranges of from 1000 to 1500 milligrams per liter, (mpl). Testing done on the reclaimed water delivered to Hi Hat Ranch showed it averaged between 1200 and 1500 mpl. Though within recommended parameters, it was toward the high end. Further, reclaimed water is not totally interchangeable with ground water for all agricultural purposes. It cannot, by law, be applied to certain types of ground crops such as melons, nor can it be used for overhead citrus irrigation. There is also a restriction on the use of reclaimed water for pastures on which dairy cattle will be grazed. This all results in a restriction on the options available to the farmer who chooses to use reclaimed water in his irrigation plan. As a result, many farmers try not to use reclaimed water if they have access to adequate amounts of groundwater from on- site wells. Notwithstanding all the above, the parties agree that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposed is in the public interest. The District encourages it but nonetheless concedes that even with the availability of reclaimed water, a farmer should have access to wells on his property, in a standby capacity, as an alternative source of water to support his farming activities. Not only that, the agreement between the City and Hi Hat provides for Hi Hat to maintain its water use permit even while receiving reclaimed water from the City. Hi Hat is not the only farm operation with whom the City has negotiated in a effort to expand its wastewater distribution program. It has found in those negotiations, that most farm producers are not willing to rely totally on reclaimed water for all their irrigation needs, and it has concluded that were it mandatory that a farmer give up his on-site ground water withdrawals in order to utilize reclaimed water for a part of his needs, most would be reluctant to use it at all. This would seriously interfere with the City's ability to dispose of its surplus reclaimed water consistent with its policy. Even though Hi Hat's property lies within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Cautionary Area, the rule pertaining thereto is inapplicable to Hi Hat because Hi Hat filed its application for permit, which was deemed complete, prior to the adoption of the rule. Nonetheless, water use officials agree that the proposed permit is consistent with the rule emphasis on the use and reuse of reclaimed water, and the District does not object to backup wells being permitted as supportive of the District's desire to keep ground water within the ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Hi Hat Cattle and Grove be issued water use permit No. 204387.03, within the limits of the authorized quantities as indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein; except that the permit be amended to show well No. 5 as a non-standby well, and to delete standby wells from the terms and requirements of Special Condition 22. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 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 PETITIONER: Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. She testified that Condition 28 of the permit provides this. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 36. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence except that the method permitted was the method being used. - 40. Accepted. Ms. Jackson indicated she "assumed" some wells were drilled into the Florida aquifer. Rejected. Accepted as qualified by the comment, "depending on the respective potentiometric heads." - 47. Accepted. Accepted but incomplete. This is because they did not feel it was necessary under the circumstances. - 51. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Redundant. - 61. Accepted. - 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. More a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein. & 71. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 74. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second portion rejected since cited case involves active wells versus standby, as here. The comparison made is accepted. The conclusion drawn as to validity is rejected. & 79. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, & 45. Accepted. 46. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Bram D.E. Canter, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara B. Levin, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health had just cause to disapprove Petitioner's application for a variance.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health (DOH) is the agency responsible for oversight of the on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems program and the Variance Review and Advisory Committee which meets monthly to recommend agency action on variance requests pursuant to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. In August 1999, Petitioner applied to the DOH for a second variance to extend a variance previously granted in June 1999, to use an existing septic system for six months. Petitioner's application for the second variance stated that county sewer would be available in 2001, and she would be required to hook into the sewer. Therefore, Petitioner wanted an extension to continue using the existing undersized septic system until the sewer was available. She also attached water usage records for June 1998 through July 1999, for her property. Petitioner owns the commercial property served by the septic system and located on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, Florida. The property consists of a strip mall with five offices and one restaurant. The property originally contained six office spaces in 1990, when Petitioner applied for a permit to install a septic system to handle the building's sewage flow. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner was granted a construction permit for the septic system on August 14, 1990, which contained the statement: "no food service operations permitted in this building." Prior to May 1999, Petitioner leased an office in her commercial property to Milagros Martinez to operate a sandwich shop. Ms. Martinez applied to DOH for approval to use Petitioner's existing septic system to handle her sandwich shop sewage, and was denied because of increased water use and septic system demands of a restaurant. Petitioner's septic system contains a 750-gallon tank with 162 square feet of drainfield. In order to handle the additional sewage generated by the sandwich shop, the Florida Administrative Code requires a 1350-gallon tank and a drainfield of 787 square feet. There is enough room on Petitioner's property to install a separate septic system to handle the sewage generated from the sandwich shop. Petitioner applied to DOH for her first variance in May 1999, requesting to utilize the septic system to handle the waste from the sandwich shop. Petitioner appeared before the DOH Variance Review and Advisory Committee in June 1999. The committee recommended, and DOH concurred, to approve the first variance with four provisos. See DOH Exhibit No. 2. The four provisos were: The applicant shall obtain and maintain an annual onsite sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit in accordance with subsection 64E-6.003(5), F.A.C. The owner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system at least once per month or more frequently as necessary. This variance allows operation of the sandwich shop for no more than six months. During that six months, the applicant shall take all necessary steps to increase the capacity of the system to accommodate the additional 230-gallon sewage flow from the sandwich shop. At the end of the six months, the system shall be in compliance or the sandwich shop shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. The four provisos were additionally explained to Petitioner in a letter dated July 14, 1999, from Sharon Heber, Director of the DOH Environmental Health Division. See DOH Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner accepted the provisions of the first variance on July 20, 1999. See DOH Exhibit No. 4. Petitioner does not have a current annual on-site sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit as required by the first proviso. Petitioner did not contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service her system at least once per month as required in the second proviso. Petitioner called a contractor to inspect her system four times in the six-month period since the first variance was granted. Within six months, Petitioner did not take the necessary steps to increase the capacity of her septic system to handle the additional flow as required by the third proviso of the first variance. The system is not in compliance and the sandwich shop is not closed as stated in the fourth proviso. In August 1999, Petitioner filed for a second variance requesting that the first variance be extended until year 2001. That is the date the county plans to install a sewer line on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, which will serve her commercial property. She submitted a letter from the Volusia County Public Works Service Center stating that the "sewer service is planned to be available sometime in the year 2001." See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Variance Review and Advisory Committee considered Petitioner's request at their September meeting. The variance committee unanimously denied Petitioner's request for a second variance. The Petitioner's system was not designed to handle an increased amount of sewage flow, and that it would eventually collapse or fail. The committee's approval of the first variance was to allow Petitioner adequate time to install the necessary septic system for the restaurant, and not put Petitioner in the position of telling her tenant she could not open her restaurant. See DOH Exhibit No. 5. When Petitioner's existing system fails, sewage will pond on the ground. The ponding fluid will consist of raw sewage. The leaking/ponding sewage may seep into the groundwater and then into drinking water aquifers. In the right conditions, this pollution can cause the spread of waterborne diseases such as typhoid and cholera, or viral infections, such as hepatitis A or polio.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order affirming the decision of the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health to disapprove Petitioner's second variance application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Connie Biancardi 2820 Howland Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725-1606 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health Volusia County Health Department 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES CMI is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida. CMI owns a mine site as is depicted in the permit application, which mine site is known as "Pine Level". Alan R. Behrens owns residential property approximately two miles from Pine Level, which abuts Horse Creek. He maintains an individual well for domestic and other purposes, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. Charlotte County is a government entity and a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The City of North Port is an incorporated municipality of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The Environmental Confederation (ECOSWF), a citizens group, is a substantially affected person under the statute. The District is the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and ruling upon CMI's water use permit application. APPLICATION AND PROCESS CMI proposes to operate a phosphate mine facility at "Pine Level" ("site"). The site is located approximately seven miles west of Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. The mine reserves at the site are approximately 17,700 acres. 9,000 to 10,000 acres are projected for mining. In 1978, Consumptive Use Permit No. 200103, was issued and in 1986, the current owners purchased the corporation which held the permit, and changed the name of the corporation to CMI. The Industrial Water Use Permit has not been used since it was issued to a prior owner of the site, and provided for average daily withdrawals of 13.6 mgd from wells. In 1984, this permit was renewed and modified to provide for average daily withdrawals of 12.8 mgd from deep wells. The groundwater withdrawals currently sought by CMI is 6.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") average daily withdrawal, which totals include 5.1 mgd from deep wells for use in the amine flotation process and 1.7 mgd for sealing the matrix slurry pumps. This reduction to 6.9 mgd in permitted withdrawals is a significant reduction. In addition, the proposed permit allows 3.7 mgd to be withdrawn from the surficial aquifer by dewatering mine cuts. In November, 1990, CMI submitted an application for renewal. In November 1991, CMI submitted to the District a revised Water Use Application No. 200103.02 ("application") to renew and modify the existing water use permit. The District requested more information, and CMI provided additional information and supplemental responses to aid in the review and evaluation of the application. The District prepared and submitted a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and the District staff has prepared a "draft" Permit No. 200103.02 authorizing the withdrawal of the quantities requested in the application with certain conditions. In addition to renewal and modification of the water use permit, which is the subject of this proceeding, CMI will be required to participate in numerous regulatory reviews and permitting procedures (i.e. a development of regional impact evaluation, a federal environmental impact statement, federal approvals under the Clean Water Act [including a national pollutant discharge elimination system ("NPDES") permit], and a conceptual reclamation plan review) before CMI may commence mining, and consequently, begin any withdrawal of water. The mining process will utilize large walking draglines to excavate over burden and stack it beside the active mining area for land reclamation. The ore material called "matrix" will be dug up by the draglines, placed into an earthen pit where it will be slurried with a high pressure water jet. A pump will pick up this slurried matrix material, pump it back to the processing plant where it will first go through various separation devices, including screens and cyclones. The course material termed "pebble" will be separated and parts of that will be directly saleable as a product. The bulk of the phosphate product is contained in intermediate-sized material called concentrate feed. The concentrate feed consists of ore and sand. The ore is separated from the sand in a process called "flotation". The flotation process is a two stage process that ends up separating the tailings sand, which can then go back to the sand-clay flocculation and mixing units, and be pumped out ultimately for land reclamation back in the mine-out areas. The phosphate product which is called "wet rock", is placed in storage bins where it can drain, and be loaded onto rail cars for shipment. The "amine flotation process" is the second stage of flotation where sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water for the amine flotation phase, because any amount of contaminants, including organic reagents, will adversely affect the process. Any mineral particles must be removed so that the amine may attach itself to the phosphate. Any contaminants will destroy or significantly and adversely affect not only the phosphate recovery, but the entire flotation process. Deep well water is requested for use in the amine flotation process because it is clean. All phosphate mines in Florida currently rely on deep well water. 5.2 mgd is the minimum amount of "clean" water needed to assure efficient processing of the amine flotation process of the mine beneficiation plant. Deep well withdrawals are also commonly used for the purpose of sealing or protecting the packing of pumps at various points in the mine system in order to avoid damage to the equipment. These wells are often referred to as "sealing water wells". The Pine Level mine will require 1.7 mgd for this purpose. Water for the sealing water wells must be clean and clear in order to effectively seal pumps for leaks. The Pine Level project will provide 400-500 construction jobs during the construction period. It will provide approximately 200 full-time jobs with an annual payroll of about five million dollars once it is in operation. It will result in about one thousand additional jobs providing services to the development. It will pay in excess of one million dollars a year to DeSoto County in ad valorem taxes. TECHNICAL CRITERIA The water use is a reasonable and beneficial use. 5.2 mgd groundwater withdrawal is "necessary to fill a certain reasonable demand." The technical criteria relating to water level or rates of flow impacts set forth in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, are not applicable in this proceeding because the District has not established any regulatory levels or rates of flow for the area encompassed by the application. In addition, this presumption only addresses surface water withdrawals. Phosphate mining is a beneficial activity and is consistent with the public interest. There is no significant risk of salt water intrusion. The water use withdrawal will not degrade the water quality in the aquifer by causing any contamination plume to spread. There have been no contaminant plumes identified on site. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS There is sufficient ground water at the site of a suitable quality and quantity to support the proposed phosphate mining and beneficiation activities. The local hydrogeology at the site consists of an upper layer known as the surficial aquifer. Rain penetrates the surficial aquifer to flow vertically to the water table. The water that is not consumed by vegetation at this layer will flow either to a nearby stream channel or will leak down through a semi- confining layer. The water continues to seep vertically into the lower underlying limestone aquifers. There are three limestone water-bearing layers: the intermediate, the Suwannee or Upper Floridan, and the Avon Park or Lower Floridan aquifers, respectively. The intermediate and the underlying Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. Likewise, the Avon Park aquifer and the Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. At the site, wells in the intermediate aquifer will draw water to seal the bearings on the matrix slurry pumps. There will be one deep well in the Suwannee and one deep well in the Avon Park to draw for the beneficiation plant. The groundwater modeling performed by CMI simulated the four aquifers, that is, the surficial aquifer and each of the three limestone aquifers. An Aquifer Performance Test ("APT") was performed at the site. The data generated from the APT was used to calculate various aquifer parameters, for example, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and leakiness. This information was then used in setting up the groundwater flow model that ultimately was incorporated into the application. During the District staff's review of the application, the deep well withdrawal quantities requested by CMI were compared with approximately 6 other phosphate mines of comparable size, acreage, and type of operation. As a result of this comparison, the staff found CMI's requested use to be less than the other six phosphate mines. The use of recycled water in the amine flotation process in place of deep well water in the past by CMI has proven unsuccessful because a constant temperature and a constant ph level could not be maintained with recycled water, and recycled water contains traces of fatty acids and oils, which also negatively affect the amine flotation process. C.F. Industries, Inc., has been operating a phosphate mine in Hardee County, Florida, since 1978. C.F. Industries, Inc., has since 1983 at the Hardee County mine, successfully substituted recirculation water for deep well water for operation of the amine flotation circuit on a routine basis. C.F. Industries, Inc., presently plans to employ substitution of some recirculation water for deep well water in a new yet-to-be permitted mine. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing Hardee County mine requires use of deep well water for start-up purposes to "charge" the system. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing mine, uses deep well water to respond to abnormal operational conditions, including excessive rainfall events, when the quality of the normal recirculation water is not suitable for substitution of deep well water. Neither CMI, nor District staff was aware prior to hearing, that the C.F. mine was successfully substituting recycled water for deep well water in the amine flotation process. At the time of making the representations to the District about necessary water quality requirements of the flotation process, CMI had a study, entitled, Amine Water Evaluation, Pine Level Project, July 27, 1984, ("Pilot Plant Study"), which concluded that deep well pumping and discharge could be reduced by use of water drawn from mine cuts. The Pilot Plant study was site specific to CMI's proposed phosphate mine. The Pilot Plant study bench tests were verified in the same pilot plant facility CMI uses to verify the grade of ore on the Pine Level Site. The Pilot Plant study or its results were known to CMI officials or experts involved in the permit application at issue in this case. CMI did not inform District staff of the existence or conclusions of the Pilot Plant study. The Pilot Plant study indicates that CMI could reduce its water usage by substituting water from mine cuts for deep well water. CMI did no studies to determine if the substitution of mine cut water for deep well water, as suggested by the Pilot Plant Study, was feasible to implement. SURFACE WATER IMPACTS The phosphate ore (matrix), is extracted by an excavation machine called a "dragline", which opens mining cuts of approximately 32 to 35 feet in depth, 330 feet wide, and up to 4,000 feet long. Seepage occurs into the mine cuts from the water table, and must be pumped out in order to see and extract the matrix. This dewatering is also necessary to protect the draglines against slope stability problems. Water pumped out of the mining cuts is introduced into the mine water recirculation system which is operated for purposes of collecting and recycling water within the mine complex. The matrix that is extracted from the mining cut is placed in a shallow excavation near the cut, and is converted to a slurry and, thereafter, transported hydraulically to the mine processing (or "beneficiation") plant. The beneficiation plant uses considerable quantities of water, utilizing supplies from within the mine system (i.e. surface water) and water from deep wells. Sand tailings and sand and clay mixture are by-products of the mining process. Recycled water is used to transport waste clay and sand from the plant to the disposal and reclamation areas. Reclamation takes 1-2 years for areas reclaimed with sand tailings and 5-6 years for areas reclaimed with a sand-clay mixture. Groundwater that is used in the processing plant is recycled. Water within the mine is recycled a number of times, and CMI's proposal calls for 90 percent of the total mine demand to be satisfied by this recirculation system and approximately 96 percent of the water used is recyclable water. DEWATERING AND WATER BALANCE CMI's mine pit dewatering activities result in the withdrawal of water from the surficial aquifer. A "water balance" demonstrates that requested quantities relate to reasonable mining, processing, and dewatering needs. The "water balance" for the mining operation evidences a balance between sources and uses/losses. The sources of water in the CMI water balance that input to the mining operation include groundwater from wells (6.9 mgd), mine cut dewatering or water table drainage (3.7 mgd), and collected rainfall (3.1 mgd). Uses and losses associated with the mining operation include water retained in clays (6.7 mgd), water shipped with final product (.7 mgd), evapotranspiration and evaporation (3.0 mgd), water used for agricultural irrigation (5.0 mgd), and water seeping from the Mine Water Surge Area ("MWSA") (1.2 mgd). The water balance matrix moisture component of 2.9 mgd is not a withdrawal of water for water use permitting purposes. The District's modeling of the impacts resulting from mine cut dewatering resulted in a finding of 2.34 MGD as opposed to the 3.7 mgd derived by CMI. For calculation purposes, rainfall is collected at the rate of 3,974 gallons per acre per day. CMI calculates that it will collect 3.1 mgd of rainfall, and use it in its recirculation system. The 3.1 mgd calculation is based on the amount of rain that will fall on 600 acres of mine water surge area, 80 acres of plant site, and two 50 acre mine cuts. CMI plans to mine 450 acres each year at the Pine Level Site over a period of 22 years. Runoff over disturbed areas on the CMI mine site must be captured, and will become part of the recirculation system. Assuming only one year of disturbed area during the permit term, CMI has failed to account for nearly 1.8 mgd in its water balance (450 acres x 3,974 gallons/acre/day). CMI plans to pump any rainfall collected from all disturbed areas to the mine water surge area (MWSA). CMI has not included any acres of disturbed area in its calculations of the amount of rainfall it will collect for the current permit. CMI has not submitted a mine plan. Without a mine plan, the number of disturbed acres cannot be determined. Because CMI's water balance does not include rainfall collected over disturbed areas, the water balance is incorrect. The rainfall collected from the disturbed areas will increase the amount of water that CMI will need to discharge or use for agricultural purposes. Excavation of the Mine Water Surge Area will cause dewatering of the surficial aquifer. No analysis was done of how much dewatering of the surficial aquifer will occur as a result of the excavation of the MWSA, or of the potential impacts to wetlands as a result of the dewatering activities. The District's one foot draw down presumption applies to dewatering as well as to groundwater pumping. The proposed dewatering setback from wetlands was set at 660 feet. The 660 foot setback distance is in lieu of mitigation if CMI wishes to mine within the setback distance, it will be required to implement mitigation procedures. Dewatering draw downs in the surficial aquifer as great as six and one-half to seven feet could occur on the CMI site at 660 feet from a mine cut under dry weather conditions. At 660 feet, the predicted draw down is nearly one and one-half feet using a mine pit depth of 26 feet, based on a three foot water table and a 29 foot average mine cut depth for the area expected to be mined during the term of the permit. Actual mine cut depths during the term of the permit would be as deep as thirty-seven feet which result in a draw down in the aquifer that is greater than one and on-half feet. Combining the dewatering calculations with the surficial aquifer draw downs resulting from CMI's planned well pumping from the intermediate and Floridian aquifers result in greater than predicted draw downs. CMI's water balance did not account for changes in water needs due to variability of the ore body. WATER QUALITY CMI has not demonstrated that the water quantities requested for the operation of the phosphate mine and beneficiation plant, and land reclamation and water handling will utilize the lowest water quality to the greatest extent practicable. Nevertheless, the Pine Level mine is innovative in comparison to other operating mines. It proposes to reduce its groundwater requirement by increasing the amount of recycled water used in the amine flotation process; employ an innovative sand/clay mixing technique for land reclamation, thus eliminating the need for conventional large, above-ground day settling areas or slime ponds; and use surplus water for irrigation of agricultural crops or pasture. CMI plans to mine the Pine Level Site for a period of 22 years. For phosphate mines, neither DNR, nor SWFWMD analyze impacts with respect to surface water during the mining process. For phosphate mines, no state agency looks at off-site surface water impacts from the standpoint of draw downs, with the possible exception of cities and counties. The District has not required CMI to submit an application for the management and storage of surface waters permit, since the District staff believes that phosphate mines are exempt from obtaining any MSSW permit from the District. A gap exists in the regulatory scheme for phosphate mines with respect to the reduction of surface water flows during the mining process if SWFWMD exempts phosphate mines from obtaining an MSSW permit. INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING LEGAL USERS The City of North Port is an existing legal user of water. The City of North Port has a public water supply facility which draws its water from the Big Slough. The Big Slough normally gets a portion of its flow from high quality water in the surficial aquifer. CMI's proposed Pine Level phosphate mine is located in the watersheds which feed the Big Slough and the Peace River. In the initial years of the mine, virtually all of the collected rainfall will be diverted from the Big Slough watershed. No analysis has been done to see how dewatering might affect the City of North Port. Any significant reduction in flow to the City of North Port's facility during the low flow season will interfere with North Ports existing legal use of water. Diversion of 3.1 mgd of rainfall from the Big Slough will have an adverse impact on the City of North Port's water facility. The City of North Port is currently under a consent agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation because the water supplied by its facility violates drinking water quality standards for sulfates and total dissolved solids ("TDS") regularly during periods of low flow in the Big Slough. The MWSA, the plant area and the initial mining areas are primarily within the Big Slough drainage area. Seepage of 1.2 mgd from the MWSA will flow into the Big Slough. The only analysis done of the quality of the seepage from the MWSA was a rough analysis which showed that sulfates will likely be around 550 grams per liter. The legal standard for sulfates in drinking water is 250 grams per liter. Seepage from the MWSA will be high in total dissolved solids ("TDS") since a good portion of it was pumped from deep wells which have very high levels of TDS. No analysis was done of the potential of this seepage water to interfere with North Port's facility. Charlotte County is an existing legal user of water whose water supply is drawn from the Peace River downstream from the proposed CMI phosphate mine at Pine Level. Discharge of 5.0 mgd from the Pine Level mine could adversely affect Charlotte County's drinking water facility located on the Peace River. AGRICULTURAL USE CMI proposes to use 5.0 MGD of surplus water for irrigation of pasture grasses for cattle. CMI has not conducted any specific tests to determine the feasibility of using the discharge or the quality of the water that they plan to use for agricultural irrigation. The water for irrigation will be drawn out of the mine water surge area. The determination of whether the 5.0 mgd discharge can be used for agricultural irrigation has been postponed. The staff's position is that the proposed special conditions provide reasonable assurances that the discharge will comply with the requirements of the Basis for Review. WETLANDS Isolated wetlands occur throughout the CMI mine site. The isolated wetlands on the CMI property provide habitat for endangered and threatened species. Sandhill Cranes and Wood Storks, both threatened or endangered species, were sighted on the CMI property by wetlands experts during their site visit prior to the hearing. Small isolated wetlands on CMI property would be adversely affected by less than a one foot draw down. Wetland peat soils oxidize if exposed to the air. Oxidation results in subsidence of the wetland soils, which adversely impacts wetlands. Too much water as well as too little water can adversely impact wetlands. The combined effects of aquifer pumping and dewatering planned at the CMI site will adversely affect wetlands. No analysis was completed of the impacts to wetlands as a result of the combined effects of dewatering and pumping from the aquifer. No information regarding the normal range of wetland hydroperiods for preserved wetlands or other onsite unmined wetlands was introduced. No information was provided regarding the habitat functions provided by the wetlands on the CMI site either for threatened or endangered species or otherwise. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the water use will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to environmental features on or off- site. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact to surface water bodies such as lakes, ponds, impoundments, springs, streams, canals, estuaries or other water courses. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse environmental impact to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish, and wildlife or other natural resources. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impacts to the surface water system or vegetation as a result of groundwater withdrawal. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact by altering or impairing the habitat of threatened or endangered species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the projected draw downs will not result in any adverse impact to any protected or non-protected plant or animal species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse environmental impact to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order DENYING the issuance of a Water Use Permit to the Applicant, CMI. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 31, 35, 38, 70, 71, 73, 75, 91, 97, 100, 104, 105, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, and 129. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 37A, 39 40, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106A, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 134. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraphs - 18, 26, 32, 41, 42, 46 (omitted), 47 (omitted), 69, 88 (omitted), 89 (omitted), 90 (omitted), 118 (omitted), 119 (omitted), and 135 (omitted). Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Charlotte County. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 7, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 36, 40, 41, 51, 59, and 62. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, and 61. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs - 43 and 44. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, City of North Port. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24(in part), 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49(in part), 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57(in part), 58, 59, 60, 61, 63(in part), 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86(in part), 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 104, 107, 108(in part), 109(in part), 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143(in part), 144, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 187, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 4(contained in Preliminary Statement), 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24(in part), 33, 43, 44, 46, 49(in part), 55, 57(in part), 62, 63(in part), 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 86(in part), 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108(in part), 109 (in part), 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 143(in part), 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 174, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent/Petitioner Consolidated Minerals, Inc. and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Accepted in Substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(in part), 23, 24, 25(in part), 26, 27(in part), 28, 29(in part), 32, 33(in part), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52(in part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 57(in part), 58, 62, 71, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 100(in part), 101, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124(in part), 125(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 133(in part), 137, 138(in part), 139, 145. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 12, 13, 15, 16, 31, 36, 37, 38, 48, 51, 52(in part), 57(in part), 59, 60, 63, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 94(in part), 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 124(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 134, 135, 136, 138(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragrahs - 22(in part), 25(in part), 27(in part), 29(in part), 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 89, 92(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 98, 99, 100(in part), 102, 103, 121, 122, 125(in part), 128, 129, 131, 132, 133(in part), 144. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitoner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4 6, 7, 17, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 39(in part) 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 71, 73, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 92(in part), 106, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32 33(in part), 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 120, 146, 147, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 44, 54, 69, 139(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Roger W. Sims, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Suite 2600 200 S. Orange Avenue P. O. Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vivian Arenas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, Florida 34609 Mr. Alan R. Behrens Route 2, Box 725-A-32 Arcadia, Florida 33821 Matthew G. Minter, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Cr. Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 David M. Levin, Esquire ICARD, MERRILL, CULLIS, TIMM, FUREN & GINSBURG PO Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kenneth B. Wright, Esquire Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund PO Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Respondent John M. Williams deposited fill in waters of the state without a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. If so, what is the appropriate corrective action and penalty?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Williams and the Cowford Subdivision Petitioner John M. Williams is a retired mechanic. In 1992, he became acquainted with the Cowford subdivision in Walton County, near Bruce, Florida. The subdivision fronts the Choctawhatchee River. Mr. Williams purchased lot 29 of the subdivision. Three or four years later, he bought lot 30. All told, Mr. Williams paid approximately $47,000 for the lots, an electric power line and an "above-ground" septic tank. The purchase price of the lots was $38,000. Running an electric line and installation of an electric light pole cost about $4,000. Mr. Williams paid about $5,000 for the septic tank and its installation. Mr. Williams' ultimate goal in purchasing the lots and adding the improvements was to build a house on the property for use in his retirement. Attempt to Obtain the Necessary Permits The septic tank was not purchased by Mr. Williams until after he had obtained a permit for its construction. At the county offices where he went to obtain the necessary permit, he was "sent over to the power company." (Tr. 216). At hearing, he described what happened there: I paid my money to get my power and they -- well, they informed me . . . once I got my power on I had 6 months to get my septic tank in the ground or they would turn my lights off. So here I had a $3,500 light pole put up and I couldn't very well see this thing going down. So, I went ahead to the Health Department. (Id.) Mr. Williams' testimony is supported by a Walton County Environmental Health Notice dated March 8, 1999, that states, "The Walton County Building Department will not be issuing approval for power for any residence until final approval of the septic system is obtained from the Walton County Environmental Health Office." P7, the first page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 10. At the Health Department, on April 12, 1999, Mr. Williams applied for an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System" permit on a form bearing the following heading: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Authority; Chapter 381, FS & Chapter 10D-6, FAC P7, page 1 of 3. According to the form, he paid the $200 fee for the permit on April 29, 1999. The payment was made within a month or so after the installation of the power line. An attachment to the "Walton County Environmental Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application," made out by Mr. Williams on April 12, 1999, contains the following warning: OTHER AGENCY PERMITS: As the owner or agent applying for an OSTDS permit it is my responsibility to determine if the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning requirements of Walton County. I further assume responsibility to obtain any applicable permits from other State and Local Government Agencies. P15, page 2. (emphasis supplied) (See also P7, the second page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 11). On May 5, 1999, about three weeks after Mr. Williams submitted the construction permit application, the site where the septic tank would be installed was evaluated by an EH Specialist, an inspector. On the same day, an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction Permit was issued for an "above-ground" 900-gallon septic tank. Installation With county personnel present and under county supervision, the septic tank was installed on a ridge on Mr. Williams property about 17 feet above mean sea level. Fill dirt was brought onto the site and placed on top of the tank to create a septic tank mound. No dredging of the property was done in connection with the installation. Chance Discovery After a complaint was registered with DEP about dredge and fill activity on one of the lots near Mr. Williams, Gary Woodiwiss, then an environmental specialist in the Department assigned to conduct inspections in Walton and Holmes Counties, visited the Cowford subdivision in July 2000. During the visit, Mr. Woodiwiss noticed the septic tank mound on Mr. Williams' property and that the mound, in part, consisted of fill dirt. Being of the opinion that the both the fill dirt and the septic tank system constituted "fill" and that the fill may have been deposited in jurisdictional wetlands, that is, "waters of the state," Mr. Woodiwiss consulted with DEP personnel about the status of the site and DEP jurisdiction. Ultimately, DEP determined that the site of the septic tank mound, within the flood plain of the Choctowhatchee River, was jurisdictional wetlands. The Department took action. DEP Action On November 16, 2000, Mr. Woodiwiss issued a memorandum to the DEP file with regard to "John Williams. Unauthorized Fill in Flood Plain." The memo states: Site is located next to Charles Riley who is the subject of Department action for filling jurisdictional wetlands. Williams was erroneously given a permit by Walton County health Dept. to install a septic system in 1999, which he subsequently installed. I visited the site with the administrator for the septic tanks program in Walton and she indicated that they would pay for the installation of a new system on a new lot for Mr. Williams. I recommend that the removal of the system and relocation of the inhabitants of the lot to an area outside of the immediate flood plain. P6. (emphasis supplied) Five days later, on November 21, 2002, a warning letter was generated by Mr. Woodiwiss under the signature of Bobby A. Cooley, Director of District Management for DEP. The letter advised Mr. Williams as follows: Recent Department survey data established at your property has determined that your entire lot is below the mean annual flood line of the Choctawhatchee River and is subject to dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Any construction on the property including placement of a mobile home, septic tank and drainfield or other structures must first receive a dredge and fill permit from the Department. Preliminary assessment of your proposed development of the property indicates that you may not meet the public interest criteria of Chapters 403 and 373 Florida Statutes for qualifying for a permit. R5. By this letter the Department informed Mr. Williams both that he was in violation of the law by not having secured a permit for the filling of the site and warned that, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, it was not likely that he would be eligible for an after-the-fact permit. The assessment of whether the site was eligible for a permit was re-stated in writing again, but with added certainty in a Compliance Assessment Form (the Form) prepared by DEP personnel. In Section V. of the form, there appears, together with the signature of the "Section Permit Processor and a date of "11/09/2000", the following: Project is not permittable due to type of wetland system being impacted and project must not be "Contrary to the Public Interest". The project could affect the public health, safety and welfare and property of others. The project is of a permanent nature. P13. Although the permit processor entered her assessment on November 9, 2000, and other sections of the form were entered on November 1, 2000, by Mr. Woodiwiss, the Compliance Assessment Form bears a final date of February 1, 2001. The Form shows the "Event Chronology" that led to the issuance of the NOV. The chronology, consistent with the testimony at hearing, reveals the following: 25 Jul.00. Complaint inspection for fill in wetlands on adjacent lot. Found isolated fill areas in a slough and adjacent to an apparent upland area. Vegetation is 100% jurisdictional but soil is composed of alluvial deposits in ridge like configurations, one of which the respondent wished to live on. Solicited the jurisdictional team for a district assist in determining jurisdiction. 21 Aug.00. District assist. Hydrologic indicators and vegetation present in sufficient quantities to establish jurisdiction. John Tobe PhD. Requested that the mean annual flood be established on the site in order to augment his determination. October 11, 2000. District assist by Bureau of Survey and mapping and the establishment of a survey line of the 2.33 year (16.42 feet above MSL) mean annual flood elevation on the adjacent violation site. The whole site is clearly under the MAF, which extends approximately 200 meters up grade towards SR 20. The elevation of the MAF is consistent with hydrological indicators (porella pinnatta) that indicate such a flood elevation, as reported in previous studies. November 7, 2000. Met with Crystal Steele and Mike Curry of Walton County DOH to establish why Mr. Williams has a septic tank permit. They indicated that the permit was issued in error and that they would require the system to be moved. Ms. Steele stated that the County would pay for Mr. Williams to have a new system installed on another site because of the oversight. There are currently two moveable vehicles on the site, one of which is connected to the system, the other has a contained service for sewage. November 21, 2000. WLI [presumably Warning Letter Issued] November 27, 2000. Call to Mr. Williams. He wants to get money back or swap property for higher. I advised him to approach the owner Mr. Martin and make his situation known. January 22, 2000. Mr. Williams has refused to remove the fill and requests an NOV. P13, (emphasis supplied) MAF and Wetland Delineation There was considerable testimony introduced at hearing about establishment of the mean annual flood ("MAF") line for the purpose, among others, of its relationship to the elevation of the septic tank mound. The issue stemmed, no doubt, from Dr. Tobe's request that MAF be established in order to "augment his determination" with regard to DEP jurisdiction based on employment of the methodology in DEP's wetland delineation rule, see paragraph 13, above. Resolution of the issue is not necessary to augment the determination that all of lots 29 and 30 of the Cowford subdivision are located in wetlands that constitute "waters of the state." That the septic tank and the fill dirt were deposited on wetlands under the jurisdiction of DEP was clearly established by Dr. Tobe in his testimony at trial and the evidence in support of it. Petitioner concedes as much in his Proposed Final Order. Environmental Harm and Human Health Exposure Wetlands whose surface area is covered by the septic tank mound have been filled. The filling has caused environmental damage. An assessment of the damage was not offered at hearing but it appears from this record that the damage is minimal. During the time the septic tank has been on Mr. Williams' property, it has never been below the flood waters of the Choctawhatchee River and therefore has not yet caused direct hazard to human health. Corrective Action and Penalty It will be expensive to remove the septic tank; the expense will be more than the cost of installation. Petitioner fears, moreover, that it will render his property worthless. There is no evidence that Petitioner's violation of Department permitting requirements was willful. He has no history of violations previous to this one. Options to continued retention of a septic system through use of a portable wheeled waste remover or use of an upland drain field on another property are either not viable or so problematic as to be impractical. DEP Modification of its Position At the outset of the hearing, DEP announced that it no longer intended to seek civil penalties of $1,500 as it had intended when the NOV was issued. All that is sought by DEP by way of corrective action or penalty is removal of the septic tank and monetary reimbursement for the cost of the investigation of $250 (see Tr. 9, lls. 17-25, and Tr. 10, lls. 1-5.)
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)
