The Issue The issue is whether WRP, Inc.'s application for an Individual Water Use Permit to construct five 24-inch diameter wells in Walton County, Florida, and to withdraw an average of 4.84 million gallons per day for twenty years, should be issued, as proposed by the agency on June 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Northwest Florida Water Management District (District), is an independent special district of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 373.069, Florida Statutes. The District is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen-county area in Northwest Florida, including all of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Respondent, WRP, Inc. (WRP), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with its headquarters in Walton County, Florida. It is jointly owned by Destin Water Users, Inc. (DWU) and South Walton Utility Company, Inc. (SWUC). Both DWU and SWUC are not- for-profit Florida corporations that own and operate water supply systems (with thirteen operating wells) in and around the southern portions of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Established in 1995, WRP was originally organized as a partnership made up of DWU, SWUC, and Petitioner, Florida Community Services Corporation of Walton County, d/b/a Regional Utilities of Walton County (RU). This partnership was established for the purpose of cooperating in the development of an alternate water supply for the utilities' service areas. Thereafter, the partnership was dissolved, which led to the establishment of WRP. RU is no longer a part of this organization. Petitioner, City of DeFuniak Springs, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida. The city owns and operates its own public water supply system. At the present time, it serves approximately 15,200 persons who reside both inside and outside the corporate limits of the city. Petitioner, City of Freeport, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida, and owns and operates its own public water supply utility. RU is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which, pursuant to a lease, operates a public water supply system in the coastal area of Walton County under a permit issued by the District. It presently serves around 500 customers representing a population of 17,000. A portion of its water supply is also obtained from the City of Freeport. Petitioner, Walton County (County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution. The County owns the land and facilities used by RU for its public water supply system. However, under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. In addition, the County also owns a small well recently constructed near the Rock Hill area. Historical Background of the Area's Water Supply The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for all citizens the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. It also seeks to allocate the resource in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. This is often referred to as the three prong test. Ground water is measured by the location of its potentiometric surface in relation to sea level. The potentiometric surface is the level to which water will rise in a tightly cased well. In portions of coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties, the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer is below sea level. At one coastal location the surface is at 110 feet below sea level as compared to elevations of more than 200 feet above sea level in the northern portions of those counties. When the potentiometric surface is below sea level it is called a cone of depression. As shown on District Exhibit 1, the cone of depression in the coastal area of Okaloosa and Walton Counties has grown from 1974 to 1995. The decline of these water levels in the coastal areas is further supported by the hydrographs found on the District's Exhibit 2 entitled Floridan Aquifer System Water Level Trends. These hydrographs document the reduction in the potentiometric surface over time. Of particular significance are the hydrographs of the "Okaloosa School Board" well which show the potentiometric surface to be 60 feet above sea level in the late 1930's when it was constructed and to be approximately 110 feet below sea level in 1996. As early as 1982, the District recognized a threat to the continued existence of a long-term sustainable water supply for the coastal regions of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Significantly, the pumping of water from the Floridan Aquifer in this coastal region has caused a degradation to the aquifer and the water resources. As a result, the District began taking affirmative steps to protect the water resources in the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. In 1982, the District undertook a regional water supply development plan entitled 1982 Regional Water Supply Development Plan (the 1982 Plan). The 1982 Plan assessed the sustainability of water resources in the coastal region of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, estimated the Floridan Aquifer's water supply capabilities in relation to expected long-term water demand, and addressed the need to find an alternative long-term water supply for these coastal regions. The 1982 Plan also discussed strategies for alternate water resource development including inland well fields, desalinization, conservation measures, and use of surface water from the Choctawhatchee River. In 1988, the District developed an addendum to the 1982 Plan, known as the 1988 Plan, which addressed similar issues. In particular, the 1988 Plan further emphasized the need for the coastal water utilities of DWU, SWUC, and RU to use inland well fields and/or desalinization as potential alternatives for the long-term water supply needs of the area. The 1988 Plan eliminated surface water from the Choctawhatchee River as a potential alternate source for the long-term water supply needs of the area because it was not technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. The thrust of these two studies is to encourage movement of withdrawals away from coastal areas. In 1989, the District implemented Rule 40A-2.801, Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes the declaration of areas of the District as "water resource caution areas." In that same year the District adopted Rule 40A-2.802(1), Florida Administrative Code, which designates the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties as a water resource caution area. This designation means that the water resources of the coastal area are limited and will not be sufficient to meet the water needs of the area within a period of twenty years. In addition, the rule prohibits non-potable uses of the Floridan Aquifer as against the public interest. Since 1989, the District has worked with DWU, SWUC, and other coastal water supply utilities to expedite the development of alternate water sources and implement water conservation measures. In Okaloosa County, the District has placed limitations on the diameters of wells and the amount of water that can be withdrawn from coastal wells. To promote conservation of water, the District has imposed stricter requirements for the reuse of wastewater; promoted the adoption by coastal utilities of inverted rate structures; required that utilities implement retrofit programs to replace old water fixtures with more efficient water-saving devices; required that utilities account for losses due to system leakage; required that utilities provide for education programs and public service announcements on the need to conserve water; and encouraged utilities to seek adoption of water efficiency landscape and irrigation ordinance by the appropriate local governments. The measures taken by the District are intended to address the harmful impacts to the Floridan Aquifer caused by increasing coastal water withdrawals. Because the District has determined that the water resources are limited, the District has mandated that alternative water supplies must be identified and developed in order to provide for a sustainable and long-term source of potable water in the coastal areas of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. There is no evidence to refute the District's concerns regarding the impact of continued coastal withdrawal and the need to find an alternative source of potable water to meet the region's long term demands. Based on the evidence, it is clear that coastal withdrawals of ground water cannot continue and that an alternate source of water must be found to meet the long-term water demands of the coastal areas of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. The Application In July 1996, WRP submitted a Consumptive Use Permit Application (CUPA) for the withdrawal of water from an inland wellfield in Walton County. The CUPA requested a maximum withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from two production wells with additional wells to be constructed on an as needed basis. The original application placed the wells along Highway 20 in the vicinity of the City of Freeport, or some twenty miles north of its present wellfields. This location concerned the District because of its proximity to the Choctawhatchee Bay and the saltwater/freshwater interface. In response to the District's concerns, WRP relocated the proposed wellfield farther north and inland to a 4,900 acre site approximately five miles north of the City of Freeport, known as the Rock Hill site. Under the proposed permit, WRP may withdraw an average of 4.84 mgd from the Floridan Aquifer from five 24-inch diameter wells. All withdrawals of water are authorized solely for public supply use. The proposed permit also authorizes a combined monthly withdrawal limit of 150,040,000 gallons. The permit is issued for a twenty-year period and has an expiration date of June 26, 2018. The proposed permit contains numerous conditions to issuance. They are primarily intended to implement water conservation and efficiency measures as well as monitor and mitigate any impacts to the Floridan Aquifer and existing legal users caused by the permitted water withdrawals. Compliance with Permitting Standards The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. In allocating water resources, the District seeks to do so in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. WRP's compliance with these broad standards will be discussed in detail below. Reasonable and Beneficial Use of the Water In determining whether a water use is reasonable and beneficial, the District must consider the criteria set forth in Rule 62-40.410(2)(a)-(r), Florida Administrative Code. Quantity of Water Requested [62-40.410(2)(a)] In its original application, WRP requested withdrawals of 7.2 mgd. Because of the District's concern that the amount of withdrawals and projected annual rate of growth were too great, the permitted amount has been revised downward to 4.84 mgd. This quantity is not excessive, and the actual pumping under the permit will be less than the amount modeled for evaluation of impacts. Demonstrated Need [62-40.410.(2)(b)] The current water source for both DWU and SWUC is coastal Walton and Okaloosa Counties. That source is insufficient for future needs, and the demand placed on that resource should be reduced. As noted above, the need for coastal areas to develop an alternative wellfield was recognized by the District as early as 1982. This finding was reconfirmed in a District study completed in 1988. The record supports a finding that WRP has shown a demonstrated need for the alternative site. Suitability and Value of Use [62-40.410(2)(c) and (d)] WRP is requesting a withdrawal of water for public supply. This type of use within the Rock Hill area is a suitable use of that resource. Also, the Rock Hill area has long been identified as a good location for an inland wellfield. The suitability of the use to the source of water is demonstrated by the high quality of the raw water which can be easily treated for potable drinking water. The purpose is for domestic consumption, which is the highest use. The proposed wellfield is the closest available inland groundwater source with minimal impact. In terms of value, WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer to provide the public with drinking water. The provision of a long-term, reliable source of water is a high value. It also helps to sustain the resource in coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties by reducing future demands on the source. The Extent and Amount of Harm Caused [62-40.410(2)(e)] The evidence establishes that neither the resource nor the existing legal users will be harmed by the proposed activity. Harm would occur, for example, when a domestic user would be permanently denied water as a result of a proposed pumping activity. Although this condition should not occur, the permit contains conditions to mitigate this event. WRP conducted a test well program and extensive groundwater modeling at its proposed wellfield to establish the drawdown curve that would exist in the Floridan Aquifer. The extent and amount of harm caused is not significant, and WRP has demonstrated that there will be no significant environmental impact or impact to other users. There will not be any drawdown impacts in the surficial aquifer, nor should there be any discernible impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Drawdowns as a result of WRP pumping in the potentiometric surface in the Freeport area are expected to be two feet in the year 2005, and around five feet in the year 2018. These are not considered significant drawdowns for a public supply well. Under the proposed permit, WRP will be required to mitigate any impacts attributable to its withdrawal that interfere with domestic users in the vicinity of the wellfield. Any problems encountered in domestic wells in the area can be remedied by adding a length of pipe, or lowering the pumps in the wells. The water resource will not be significantly impacted by saltwater intrusion as a result of the proposed use. The greatest part of the advance of the saltwater wedge is due to the City of Freeport's own pumping; WRP's contribution to the advance is minimal. This is because the City of Freeport is closer to the coast. Any impacts on wells within the City of Freeport from chlorides will be the result of their own pumping, and not that of WRP's proposed pumping. Mitigation of Harm [62-40.410(2)(f)] The District does not anticipate that any harm to other legal users will occur. Even assuming arguendo that some harm might occur, there are two conditions in the permit that can be invoked to ensure that the issues are addressed. Standard Condition 11 entitles the District to curtail permitted withdrawal rates if such withdrawal causes significant adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water, or adjacent use, while Special Condition 17 requires that WRP mitigate any impacts to existing legal users if such interference should occur. The District envisions the latter condition to be implemented through a telephone hotline and arrangements with a water well contractor to remedy any adverse impact. To the extent that any harm to area domestic wells may occur, WRP has agreed to correct any individual adverse impacts by either lowering the pump, deepening the well, replacing the well, or whatever may be necessary. This is consistent with Special Condition 17, which requires that WRP mitigate impacts attributable to its withdrawal which interfere with users of water in the vicinity of their wellfield. Finally, the proposed permit has a system of checks and balances by which the District can look at actual water uses over time and adjust them while still providing for coastal reductions. Impacts on Other Lands [62-40.410(2)(g)] Although WRP purchased approximately five thousand acres on which to site its wellfield, not all of the property is necessary to run the wellfield. The parcel was purchased so that any adverse effects from the pumping would not affect landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would be confined to the purchased property. The test well program conducted at the remote wellfield, and the modeling conducted by WRP Witness Maimone, establish that the greatest impacts will be on lands owned and controlled by WRP. Method and Efficiency of Use [62-40.410(2)(h)] The method and efficiency of use by WRP is demonstrated by its utilization of water conservation measures to ensure that efficiency is maximized throughout the system. The use of ground water from the inland wellfield is an efficient method of providing potable water for public supply. Water Conservation Measures [62-40.410(2)(i)] The District has mandated that certain conservation steps be taken to protect the resource in the Okaloosa and Walton County area. This is consistent with the District's efforts to require implementation of conservation measures by coastal water supply utilities. Reuse of treated wastewater has been encouraged, and it is used to irrigate golf courses and private landscapes. Also, the District is requiring DWU and SWUP to account for and correct water losses, and to undertake retrofit programs among homeowners and commercial establishments to install water-saving devices and other types of efficiency measures. Except on rare occasions, all DWU treated effluent is used for irrigation. Indeed, DWU is currently achieving a 100 percent reuse rate. Reuse water currently supplied to customers of DWU is not available for aquifer storage. As part of a general conservation effort, DWU has replaced almost 6,000 water meters in the last five years. The City of Destin, which is within DWU's service area, has distributed low-usage shower heads, and it has implemented a low volume toilet ordinance which requires these types of fixtures in all new construction. Currently, DWU has a 12 percent water loss and is attempting to meet the District's recommended goal of 10 percent. SWUC has various programs in place to conserve potable water. The conservation methods include an inverted block structure, reuse, and public education. Currently, SWUC provides reuse irrigation water to golf courses and a subdivision. The evidence supports a finding that the water use proposed by WRP will not be wasteful. Conditions 3 through 12 in the permit require WRP to implement a comprehensive series of water conservation and efficiency measures. Without the new wellfield, it would be impossible to conserve a sufficient amount of water to be able to provide for the future needs of the citizens to be served by WRP. The District will require WRP to comply with a comprehensive water conservation and efficiency program. The conservation and efficiency program includes implementation of a retrofit program, reduction of unaccounted for losses to less than ten percent, five-year audits, landscape ordinances, and irrigation ordinances. Feasibility of Other Sources [62-40.410(2)(j)] The District has identified no available surface water body from which WRP could meet its anticipated demands. In 1988, the Choctawhatchee River was determined not to be a feasible source. Additionally, the Sand and Gravel Aquifer is not suitable for a large, public supply utility to access. In 1982, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) was projected to be a location for regional wellfields. The 1988 Plan, however, removed Eglin as a possible solution for long-term water supply problems due to Eglin's decision not to allow wells on the reservation. SWUC, DWU, and WRP all produced water masterplans in order to identify options available to address the additional water supply needs in the area. Upon its formation, WRP undertook an investigation to determine whether additional water supplies could be provided best by a remote wellfield or by a reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The study was undertaken because the the available water supply clearly would be insufficient and other options should be considered. After being formed, WRP immediately purchased options from the Champion Paper Company for six well sites along Highway 20. At considerable expense, WRP investigated the RO alternative as a water supply source along with other alternative sources such as reclaimed water, stormwater, brackish water, and saltwater. WRP constructed a RO test well to evaluate that option. The test well extended into the Lower Floridan Aquifer since that aquifer was considered as a possible source of brackish water from which potable water could be produced. The District provided a $30,000 grant toward the RO evaluation, and it also provided technical assistance and guidance to ensure that WRP obtained the type of data that the District desired. Assumptions made in evaluating the cost of the RO option were designed to predict the lowest possible construction and operating costs. Also, a number of problems were identified with the RO process. These included long-term water quality, contamination, and disposal of the waste (reject water) produced. These concerns are addressed separately below. The potential for long-term change in water quality is the most important factor in evaluating the feasibility of the RO option. WRP's test well showed chlorides at 1,800 parts per million; 200 feet below that, the test well was half seawater; and at another 200 feet below, the test well was full of seawater. These results indicated that saltwater upconing was a severe concern. The data strongly indicated that water quality would not remain constant for very long in the RO well. An analysis made by WRP estimated that saltwater upconing would occur in less than a year and probably within a matter of months. The analysis considered only vertical movement for upconing within the RO test well, and it did not consider the effects of horizontal movement. These assumptions produce the most reliable result possible. The possibility of lateral movement is an additional risk to the water quality in the RO test well. Together with the potential for upconing shown in the study conducted by WRP, a great amount of uncertainty existed in the raw water source in terms of long-term stability and water quality. If seawater occurred within the aquifer at some close proximity to the RO test well, then ultimately the whole system could convert from brackish water to a seawater system. This would change the entire economics of the treatment process and plant design, and it would diminish WRP's ability to obtain a concentrate disposal permit. Without some certainty as to the quality of water over time, RO is not a viable alternative. The data summarized in WRP's report demonstrates that copper values in excess of 2.9 micrograms per liter (mcg/l) were present in the water withdrawn from the well. Samples taken directly from the Lower Floridan Aquifer using the Packard Stem Test indicated that the copper came from the aquifer formation. The established water quality standard for copper in Class II waters is 2.9 mcg/l. As noted above, this standard would be violated. The concentrate or reject water from the RO process utilizing the subject source would be expected to contain five times the copper concentration of the raw water. In addition to this concern, gross alpha, Radium 226, and Radium 228 were also present in grab samples and constituted another potential problem. These types of contamination render the RO option unfeasible because of problems with disposal of the concentrate or reject water. A RO option necessarily includes a brine disposal element. The disposal would be in the form of a reject stream that would be continuously discharged from the RO facility while in operation. The concentrate from the RO process is classified as an industrial waste. In Florida, the method for disposal for the reject water includes deep well injection and surface water disposal. However, the deep well injection of reject concentrate is not feasible for the RO well because the Lower Floridan Aquifer has no internal confinement between the zone of withdrawal and a proposed zone of injection. Moreover, there is no zone in Northwest Florida sufficient to be used for this type of injection in these volumes. The only other remaining option would be surface water discharge which requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Any surface water discharge with respect to RO would be to Class II waters, which would be far more difficult to permit than a Class III water, where such discharges have normally occurred. In addition, because of the high level of copper in the reject concentrate, it would be extremely difficult to receive a mixing zone for copper at the extended concentrations. Since 1982, the District has recommended that an inland wellfield be developed in the area north of the City of Freeport. An inland wellfield is a more reliable source of water with a greater amount of certainty, can be permitted within a reasonable period of time, and is less expensive. WRP's proposal for a remote, inland well in the Rock Hill area is consistent with these goals. Present and Projected Demand for Water [62-40.410(2)(k)] The District relied upon two studies to reach the conclusion that the average growth rate for water would be three percent per year in WRP's service area. This contrasts with WRP's projection that a five percent growth rate would be more accurate. Due to the high degree of uncertainty in the area of growth and water demand, the District has provided a mechanism to deal with underestimated growth which includes periodic review of the withdrawal amounts by the District and corresponding adjustments, if necessary. It is clear that the supply of water is adequate to provide water for WRP as well as other users in the area. Long-Term Yield Available from the Source of Water and Water Quality Degradation [62-40.410(2)(l) and (m)] Sufficient water resources exist in the Rock Hill area to meet projected water demands through the year 2018. No impact to the surficial aquifer is expected, while only minimal impact to nearby surface water is projected to occur. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not a factor. For some fifteen years, the District has taken steps to monitor and reduce coastal well withdrawals. More recently, it directed its staff to notify all existing non-potable users of the Floridan Aquifer that at the time of permit renewal, they may be required to find alternate sources. Starting two years ago, a number of these permits came up for renewal. In some cases, the applicants were given approximately two years to eliminate the Floridan Aquifer withdrawals, find an alternate source, and plug their wells. The potential for water quality degradation is evaluated through computer modeling. A modeling plan is a document that describes the approach that a modeler is going to use to build a model. It specifies the various components of the model, battery conditions, modeling techniques, model domain, and the modeler's conceptualization of the stratigraphy. WRP's model demonstrates a lack of degradation of the water resources. The modeling of the saltwater wedge indicates that the wells in the Freeport area will not be threatened. There will be negligible impacts to base stream and river flow and no impact to surface wetlands. Based on the present and projected demand for the source of water, no significant impact to the environment or to existing users will occur. To the extent water quality degradation might occur, it will cause a minimal amount of change in the position of the diffused chlorides in the coastal zone. The predicted impacts to water quality take into consideration the coastal reductions which will limit pumping of the coastal wells and switch withdrawals to the alternate inland source. Proposed Flood Damage [62-40.410(2)(n)] There is no indication that WRP's proposed withdrawal activity will cause any flood damage. The proposed use will not cause or contribute to flood damage due to its negligible affect on surface waters. Significant Inducement of Saltwater Intrusion [62-40.410(2)(o)] WRP's coastal saltwater intrusion model used worst case conditions when estimating the movement of the saltwater wedge. Indeed, the saltwater intrusion was computed so conservatively that the existing coastal wells were modeled pumping saltwater instead of the actual freshwater that they currently pump. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not projected to be dramatic over the next 50 years. The location of the saltwater wedge in the year 2050 would still be 600 feet below sea level. The wedge does not approach, nor would it threaten, the City of Freeport's wells. In fact, any potential risk of saltwater contamination in Freeport's wells is due to that City's current pumping rates. The Amount of Water Which Can be Withdrawn [62-40.410(2)(p)] The amount of water withdrawn by WRP will have no significant impact on the resource. This finding is supported by a WRP groundwater modeling study. The impacts of the wellfield on the potentiometric surface do not go below sea level. There will be no drawdown impact in the surficial aquifer or any discernable impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Adverse Effect on Public Health [62-40.410(2)(q)] No potential adverse effects on public health have been identified in the instant case, and there is no indication that WRP's withdrawals would affect public health. The resource is a high-quality use and would provide the public with a high-quality source of water for drinking purposes. Significant Effects on Natural Systems [62-40.410(2)(r)] The evidence established that there will be no impacts to surface wetlands and very minimal impacts to base stream flow. Base flow is the constant flow from groundwater into surrounding waters. Any reduction in the flow of groundwater to the Choctawhatchee River as a result of WRP pumping is negligible. Slight impacts were observed in the base flow of streams close to the proposed wellfield site. Impacts on the surface water are also minimal. Riparian wetlands would be unaffected by the water level decline that was simulated as a result of WRP pumping. Finally, any impacts associated with the construction of the transmission pipeline from the inland wellfield are temporary in nature and extend only through the period of construction. Consistent with the Public Interest The evidence demonstrates that the use of the water by WRP, as well as the water use reduction allocation, is consistent with the public interest. WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer in the Rock Hill area to provide citizens with drinking water. The purpose of domestic consumption is the highest and best use of a water resource. The public interest is served through the proposed reduction in coastal groundwater withdrawals contained in the WRP permit. Reduction in the withdrawals from the coastal areas has been a long-term goal of the District in order to protect water resources in the area. WRP's proposed use is also consistent with the public interest in that the use will not affect natural systems in the area. Similarly, the use proposed by WRP is consistent with regional water supply planning needs. Finally, the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive planning goals of Walton County as expressed in its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR commends WRP's efforts to fully analyze the alternative sources and its selection of the Rock Hill area on which to site a remote wellfield. Non-Interference with Existing Legal Users WRP purchased 5,000 acres on which to site its wellfield so that pumping from the well sites would not adversely affect adjacent landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would basically be confined to the property. Pertinent District rules only require that an applicant consider existing legal uses of water. However, WRP considered all existing legal uses of water and their future increases until the year 2018, and these existing and potential impacts were considered in its groundwater model. Even with the anticipated pumpage in the year 2018, the potentiometric surface at the WRP wellfield site location will not be drawn below sea level. The water level drawdowns associated with the withdrawal do not constitute a harm, they can be remedied, and the permit has been conditioned to provide for those remedies. For example, Standard Condition 11 and Specific Condition 17 provide protection to domestic wells users in the area. They should specifically address the legitimate concerns of public witnesses who testified at hearing. The Local Sources First Statutory Provision Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1998), also known as the local sources first statutory provision, enumerates a number of factors which the District must consider when evaluating whether a proposed use of water is consistent with the public interest. However, the law provided that water use permit applications pending with the District as of April 1, 1998, were exempted. The legislation was not enacted until October 1, 1998, and the notice of proposed agency action on the instant permit was issued in June 1998. Therefore, the District took the position that the legislation does not apply to the WRP permit. In an abundance of caution, however, the District reviewed the application as if the local sources first exception applied, and then again as if the exception did not apply. Under either scenario, the District concluded that the application met the criteria enumerated by the law. Assuming arguendo that the new law applies, WRP has met all criteria necessary for the issuance of a permit. The proposed wellfield site is the best suitable site to move water withdrawals inland away from the coastal area, and other locations closer to the coast would have resulted in interference and impacts; there are no other impoundments in the vicinity of the proposed wellfield site that are technically and economically feasible for the proposed use; there are no economically and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed source; there are no potential environmental impacts from the wellfields; there are no adequate existing sources of water available on the peninsula; the District has had numerous interactions with area local governments; and the District did not allow WRP's investment in 4,900 acres of land to influence its decision. Standing The only alleged basis for standing which went to fact finding at hearing was an allegation in paragraph (5)(a) of the Petition that "[t]he withdrawal of up to 4.8 million gallons per day of groundwater by WRP will adversely impact the quantity and quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by Petitioners." As to RU, which currently serves 500 customers representing a population of 17,000, it has no wells in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfield; its wellfields are located along the coastal area of Highway 30-A from Santa Rosa Beach to the east of Inlet Beach, on the Bay County line, or some twenty- five to thirty miles south of the proposed wellfield. It also purchases 500,000 gallons of water per day from the City of Freeport to meet its customers' demand. Because of RU's own continued pumping, at least four of its coastal wells are "going bad" due to saltwater intrusion and upconing. This condition will continue to occur even if WRP's application is not granted. Although it has a permit application for new inland wellfields pending with the District, at the time of hearing the application was incomplete and is therefore irrelevant to a standing determination. There was no direct evidence that RU's coastal wellfields will be adversely affected by WRP's proposed operation. Indeed, the projected decline in water levels in that area will be less than one foot and will have a de minimus impact. As to Walton County, it owns the land on which RU's coastal wells are located as well as the production facilities. Under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. The County also had one small exempt well in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfields which was installed after this case was filed, but shortly before the hearing began. There was no evidence as to the depth of the well, the source of water, or the well's pumping capacity. Likewise, there was no evidence that the well has actually been used. In addition, there was no evidence that the County relies on groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer to supply potable water to its citizens or customers, or that WRP's proposed withdrawal will adversely impact the quantity or quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by the County. As to the City of DeFuniak Springs, it operates its own public water supply system serving approximately 17,200 persons. It has four water supply wells located approximately nine miles north of WRP's proposed wellfields, and upstream from WRP's site. WRP's model predicts that the City's wellfields will be impacted, albeit very slightly, by WRP's pumping over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this limited extent, the proposed activity affects its substantial interests. Finally, the City of Freeport owns and operates its own public water supply utility. It has existing wells which are permitted by the District and which lie five miles directly south of WRP's proposed wellfield. Like the City of DeFuniak Springs, the City of Freeport will also experience drawdown impacts, although not considered significant, over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this extent, the permit will impact the City of Freeport. This is true in spite of the City's admission that its principal concern in this case is WRP's intention to sell water to customers outside Walton County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting Consumptive Water Use Permit No. I05349 to WRP, Inc., as proposed in its Notice of Proposed Agency Action issued on June 5, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1999. Douglas E. Barr, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District Route 1, Box 3100 Havana, Florida 32333-9700 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Jack R. Pepper, Jr., Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0687 Clayton J. M. Adkinson, Esquire Post Office Box 1207 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435-1207 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Stephen L. Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3059 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 8, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health, including the county health departments such as the St. Lucie County Health Department ("County Health Department"), are responsible for supervising and controlling limited use public water systems. Section 381.0062(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Gorman is the owner of three duplexes located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; 140 and 142 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and 160 and 162 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida. The duplexes were built in 1982 and 1983 and each contains two units which are available for rent. Water is piped into each duplex from a well located on the property. The wells providing water to 120 and 122 Laidback Way and to 140 and 142 Laidback Way were inspected by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in May 1994 and found to be satisfactory pending results of water tests. Two-day bacteriological analyses were conducted on May 2 and 3, 1994, on the wells serving these two properties, and the results were satisfactory. 3/ The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 120 and 122 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 30-gallon "p tank"; a 20-gallon water softener filter; and a 30-gallon brine tank. The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 140 and 142 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 20-gallon "p. tank"; a 25-gallon water softener filter; and a 40-gallon brine tank. In a letter dated August 21, 1998, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he needed to submit the application enclosed with the letter and a $140.00 fee to bring the "permit" to current status for the property located at 140 and 142 Laidback Way. The letter was inartfully composed and conveyed incomplete information regarding the nature of the permit. The letter did, however, contain reference to "Chapter" 381.0062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-8, Florida Administrative Code, and it also provided notification that Chapter 64E-8 required quarterly sampling of limited use public water systems for bacteria and a lead and nitrate test every three years. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman an identical notice, dated August 21, 1998, regarding the property located at 160 and 162 Laidback Way. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman a somewhat different letter, dated August 31, 1998, regarding the "Limited Use Public Water Systems" for the property located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way. The letter notified Mr. Gorman that his permit to operate the "referenced water system has expired as of September 30, 1998." The letter reiterated the information contained in the August 21 letter and requested in addition that Mr. Gorman submit "a minimum 8.5 x 11 inch site plan of the system, drawn to scale, that accurately identifies the location of the source of water in relation to property boundaries and contaminant sources, i.e., well must be 75 feet from septic system, etc." and an "[e]quipment list: pump, tank, softener, automatic chlorinate, etc., manufacturer, model #, and capacity." Finally, Mr. Gorman was notified of the permitting and testing fees and told that the "[a]pplication with required site and equipment information must be submitted with necessary fees within 30 days receipt of this notification." Mr. Gorman responded with a letter dated October 16, 1998, in which he posed several questions to the County Health Department: Do you understand that these are duplexes? Are all rental properties including single family subject to these regulations? Can you give me a valid reason why rental units of two units or more should be subject to quarterly bacterial testing (I believe the statute only authorizes it annually) and not all other residential properties, public facilities or otherwise that might use well water? Mr. Gorman requested a response to his questions but did not provide the information, applications, and permit fees requested in the letters dated August 21 and August 31. In a letter dated December 14, 1998, sent certified mail with return receipt requested and referenced as a Notice of Violation, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he was operating limited use community public water systems without a permit at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162 Laidback Way and that he had not provided the following required information: Signed, dated application form. An operation permit fee of $75.00 for the initial permit. A site plan of the property that accurately identifies the location of the well in relation to property, boundaries and contaminant sources such as septic tank systems. Capacity/size, model and brand information on system components. Well completion report if available or year well was installed if known. Required chemical analysis results (lead and nitrate). Initial satisfactory two-day source (well) water and system water bacteriological tests results. Mr. Gorman was told to contact Bruce McLeod within five days of receipt of the notice. Although Mr. Gorman received the notice on December 16, 1998, he did not respond. The County Health Department had not, as of the final hearing, received any reports of illness attributable to the water from the wells at the subject properties, and it does not have any reason to believe that the wells are contaminated. Mr. Gorman had not, as of the final hearing, submitted the applications, permit fees, or information requested by the County Health Department, and he had no operating permits for the wells providing water to the subject properties. The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that the wells providing water to the three duplexes owned and rented by Mr. Gorman each contains two rental units and are limited use community public water systems. Mr. Gorman must have operating permits for the wells providing water to these properties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: Finding that Robert J. Gorman is guilty of three violations of Section 381.0062, Florida Statutes (1997), because he failed to obtain operating permits for the limited use community public water systems he maintains at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162, Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1500.00, or $500.00 for each of the three violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of June, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District) should grant the application of the Misty Creek Country Club, Inc. (the Club), to modify MSSW Permit No. 400037.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioners are owners of property adjacent to Lake No. 7 of the Misty Creek Country Club in a development called The Preserves at Misty Creek-- specifically, lot 113 (Robert and Lee Werner), lot 114 (Charles and Rosemary Biondolillo), lots 115 and 115A (Ignatius and Judith Bertola), lots 117 and 117A (Don and Halina Bogdanske), lots 118 and 118A (Louis and Betty Mitchell), lots 119 and 119A (George and Dorothy Holly), lots 120 and 120A (John and Maureen Higgins), and lot 121 (William and June Spence). Respondent, the Misty Creek Country Club (the Club), operates a golf course and country club located at The Preserves at Misty Creek under a 99-year lease with Gator Creek Lands, the developer of The Preserves at Misty Creek. Existing System Design and Application for Permit Modification In 1985, Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District, issued a surface water management permit for development of a 730-acre residential development and golf course. The District subsequently issued to the Club operation phase authorization for the surface water management system associated with the golf course portion of the development in March of 1992. Under the original permit, Lake No. 7 was part of the overall stormwater management system for the golf course. The lake is approximately seven and half to eight acres in size and is part of a total drainage basin of approximately twenty-eight acres. As originally designed, Lake No. 7 is a detention with filtration system. An underdrain in the side of the bank provides water quality treatment, filtering out oils and greases, fertilizers and other contaminants. A control elevation of 31.02 was established for Lake No. 7 through construction of a weir. Between elevation 31.00 and 31.02, water discharges through the underdrain system providing water quality treatment. Above elevation 31.02, water flows over the control structure into Lake No. 6, and ultimately discharges to Cow Pen Slough, which is Class III waters of the state. The Club presently has a water use permit from the District which allows withdrawal of groundwater for irrigation of the golf course. Groundwater is stored in Lake No. 7 prior to use for irrigation when needed to augment water in the lake. Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit required the Club to investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed or reuse water in lieu of groundwater for irrigation purposes at the golf course. As a result of the investigation required by Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit, the Club filed an application with the District to modify its surface water management permit to allow for the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Under that application, there would have been no significant modifications to the stormwater management system. Reuse water would have replaced groundwater as a source for augmenting water in the lake when needed for irrigation. An eight-inch service line would convey the reuse water to Lake 7, and a float valve would control the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. When water levels in the lake fell below elevation 30.5', the float valve would open the effluent line to allow introduction of reuse water into the lake; when the water elevation in the lake reached 31.0', the float valve would shut off the flow of water. There would be gate valves on either side of the structure that could be manually closed, if necessary, to stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if the float valve malfunctioned. Club personnel would have access to the gate valves and could manually stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if necessary. On August 9, 1995, just days prior to the final hearing in this matter, the Club proposed to modify its application to make certain structural changes in the design of the surface water management system. Specifically, the Club proposed to plug the window in the weir, raise the elevation of the weir or control structure to elevation 33.6, raise the elevation of the berm along the north end of Lake No. 7 adjacent to the weir to elevation 33.6, and plug the underdrain. The purpose of the proposed modifications to the design of the system was to assure that no discharge from Lake No. 7 would occur up to and including the 100-year storm event. A 100-year storm event is equal to 10 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. Source and Quality of Reuse Water The Club also entered into an agreement with Sarasota County to accept reuse water from the county's new Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility. That agreement specifies the terms under which the Club will accept reuse water from the County. The County's Bee Ridge facility is presently under construction and is not yet operating. As permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility will use a Bardenpho waste treatment system which is a licensed process to provide advanced waste treatment. The construction permit establishes effluent limits for the facility that are comparable to a level of treatment known as advanced secondary treatment, but the County Commission for Sarasota County has instructed the County staff to operate the Bee Ridge facility as an advanced waste treatment plant. Advanced waste treatment is defined by the quality of the effluent produced. For advanced waste treatment, the effluent may not exceed 5 milligrams/Liter of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or total suspended solids (TSS), 3 milligrams/Liter of total nitrogen, or 1 milligram/Liter of total phosphorus. It also requires high level disinfection. Advanced secondary treatment requires the same level of treatment for TSS but the limit for nitrates is 10 milligrams/Liter. High level disinfection is also required for advanced secondary treatment. In Florida, reuse systems require a minimum of advanced secondary treatment. High level disinfection is the level of treatment that generally is accepted as being a reasonable level of treatment. The Bee Ridge permit issued to Sarasota County identifies the Club as one of the recipients of reuse water for irrigation. Condition Number 21 of that permit provides that the use of golf course ponds to store reuse water is not authorized under the County's permit until issuance of a separate permit or modification of the County's permit. Although the District did not require Misty Creek to submit any information about the modification of the County's permit, there was no basis for assuming that the County permit could not be modified. To the contrary, the permit provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Under the late modification to the Club's application, the reuse water transmission line and float valve system, with backup manual gate valve system, is unchanged. So are the water elevations at which the float valve system will automatically introduce reuse water into Lake 7 and shut off. Sarasota County already has constructed the water transmission system that would deliver reuse water to the Club. At the request of the District, the Club provided copies of the drawings of the float valve structure as permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District did not require certified drawings of that structure. But the District will require the Club to provide as-built drawings following completion of construction prior to the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Property Ownership Each of the Petitioners owns a residential lot adjacent to Lake No. 7. At the time of the Petitioners' purchase of the individual residential lots, the Club leased certain property immediately west of Lake No. 7 from the developer of The Preserve at Misty Creek. The leased premises included a piece of land extending into the lake known as the 19th green. As a result of negotiations between the Club and the developer, it was determined that the 19th green would be removed and the land between the approximate top of bank of Lake No. 7 and the private residential lots would be released from the Club's lease. The developer subsequently conveyed the property that had been released from the Club's lease to the individual lot owners (the "A" parcels listed in Finding 1). At the time of the conveyance of the additional parcels, the attorney for the developer prepared deeds for each individual parcel with a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots to which they were being added. While the Club's application for modification of its surface water management permit was being processed by the District, counsel for Petitioners provided the District with copies of the individual deeds and questioned whether the Club had ownership or control of the land which was the subject of the application sufficient to meet the District's permitting requirements. In response to a request for information regarding the ownership of the property that was the subject of the application, the Club submitted to the District a topographical survey prepared by Mr. Steven Burkholder, a registered professional land surveyor with AM Engineering. The topographical survey depicted: the elevation of the water in the Lake No. 7 on the day that the survey was conducted, labeled "approximate water's edge"; the elevation of the "top of bank"; and the easternmost line of private ownership by Petitioners. Mr. Burkholder determined the line of private property ownership by reproducing a boundary survey attached to the individual deeds conveying the additional parcels to the Petitioners. He testified that he was confident that the topographical survey he prepared accurately represented the most easterly boundary of the Petitioners' ownership. The elevation of the line of private ownership as depicted on the survey prepared by Mr. Burkholder ranges from a low of approximately 34.5 to 35.2. The elevation of the line labeled "top of bank" ranges from a high of 35.6 to a low of 34.4. The elevation of the water in Lake No. 7 would be controlled by the elevation of the modified control structure which is proposed to be set at elevation 33.6. After modification of the surface water management system to retain the 100-year storm event, at no time would water levels in the lake rise above the existing elevation of the "top of bank." The Petitioners testified that they believed that they owned to the water's edge or edge of the lake, but Mr. Burkholder testified that a property boundary could not be determined based on an elevation depicting the water's edge because that line would change as the level of the water rose and fell. The Petitioners also presented evidence that the developer's attorney made representations to them that their ownership extended to the "approximate high water line." But there appears to be no such thing as an "approximate high water line" in surveying terms. Where the boundary of a lake is depicted on a survey it generally is depicted from top of bank to top of bank. In any event, the legal descriptions of the parcels conveyed to the Petitioners were not based on a reference to either a water line or the water's edge or the lake at all. Instead, the legal descriptions were based solely on a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots. Notwithstanding some contrary evidence, if the Petitioners owned to the water's edge, such ownership would require the Petitioners to consent to or join in the amended application for the modification of the Club's surface water management permit. Information regarding the ownership or control and the legal availability of the receiving water system is required as part of the contents of an application under Rule 40D-4.101(2)(d)6. and 7., Florida Administrative Code. The amended application requires the ability to "spread" Lake 7 in the direction of the Petitioners' property. If the Petitioners own the property on which the Club intends to "spread" Lake 7 in order to make the amended application work, the Petitioners must consent or join. The issue of the legal ownership and control of the Petitioners and the Club currently is in litigation in state circuit court. If the state circuit court determines that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank," consideration would have to be given to modifying any permit issued to the Club to insure that the designed "spread" of Lake 7 in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event does not encroach on the Petitioners' property. District Permit Requirements The District has never before processed an application for a surface water management permit allowing commingling of storm water and reuse water. The District applied Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, in reviewing the Club's permit application. There are no specific provisions in Rule 40D-4 or the District's Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications that address the commingling of stormwater and reuse water; on the other hand, no rules of the District prohibit the introduction of other types of water into a stormwater treatment pond so long as the requirements of Rule 40D-4 are met. The District has the authority to allow stormwater and reuse water to be commingled. Section 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, contains the conditions for issuance of a surface water management permit. Permitting Criteria In order to obtain a surface water management permit to commingle stormwater and reuse water in Lake 7, the Club must provide reasonable assurances that the proposed modifications to its existing system will provide adequate flood control and drainage; not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands; not result in a violation of surface water quality standards; not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows; not diminish the capability of the lake to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code; not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife or other natural resources; be effectively operated and maintained; not adversely affect public health and safety; be consistent with other public agency's requirements; not otherwise be harmful to water resources of the District; and not be against public policy. No surface or groundwater levels or flows have been set for this area of the District, so that permit criterion is not applicable to the Club's application. The Club's application will not impact wetlands or fish and wildlife associated with wetlands as described in F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f). There are no wetlands regulated by the District in the project site. The Club has submitted to the District an operation and maintenance plan for the modified surface water management system. The operation and maintenance plan is in compliance with the District's permitting criteria contained in Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g). The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not adversely affect the public health and safety is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The permitting criterion that a project must be consistent with the requirements of other public agencies was met by inclusion in the permit of Special Conditions Nos. 5 and 6, Limiting Condition No. 3 and Standard Condition No. 3, which require that the surface water management permit be modified if necessary to comply with modifications imposed by other public agencies. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project may not be against public policy is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with that criterion. The project will not have an adverse impact on water quality or quantity in receiving waters or adjacent lands. Under the District's regulations, the project would not be permittable if it caused flooding on property owned by other persons. Two concerns regarding off-site flooding were raised by Petitioners: first, the potential for flooding of the Petitioners' property; and, second, the potential for flooding of secondary systems connecting to Lake No. 7 such as private roads in the development. The project would violate the requirements of Section 40D-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a proposed project provide adequate flood protection and drainage, if raising the weir and berm elevation to 33.6 would cause the level of water in Lake No. 7 to move laterally up the bank and encroach on property owned by Petitioners. However, the Club has given reasonable assurances that the Petitioners own only to the "top of bank" and that raising the weir elevation to 33.6 would not cause water levels to rise above the "top of bank" of the lake. If it is determined in pending state circuit court proceedings that the Petitioners own beyond the "top of bank," any permit for the Club's project might have to be modified to avoid flooding the Petitioners' property. With respect to potential flooding of secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways, raising the elevation of water in Lake No. 7 would decrease the capacity of the storm sewers draining into the Lake. However, the proposed modifications would not increase the area of impervious surface in the drainage basin or decrease the size of the lake, and water levels in the roadways probably would not rise much higher than under present circumstances. The existing storm sewer system is only designed for a 10-year storm event, so the supplemental effect on roadway flooding from retaining a 100-year storm event in Lake No. 7 probably would be negligible. The Club gave reasonable assurances that any increase in water levels on the roadways from the proposed modifications would not be considered a significant adverse effect because it still would not affect public access. Sarasota County's land development regulations allow flooding in streets of up to 12 inches for a 100-year storm event, nine inches for a 25-year storm event, and six inches for a 10-year storm event. No portion of the proposed project area is within the 100-year floodplain. The project will not have an adverse effect on water quantity attenuation or cause flooding of the Petitioners' property or secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways. Petitioners have protested the effect that this project will have on water quality within Lake No. 7, itself. Surface water quality standards do not apply within a stormwater pond. Stormwater ponds are essentially pollution sinks intended to receive polluted runoff. Where there is no discharge from a pond, water quality treatment is irrelevant. Lake 7 is not a "water resource within the District" pursuant to Section 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, and potential impact on water quality in Lake No. 7 should not be considered. Section 40D-4.301(1)(j) limits the issues to be considered by the District to downstream water quality, water quantity, floodplain impacts, and wetlands impacts. The commingling of wastewater effluent treated to a level of advanced secondary or advanced waste treatment (reuse water) would improve water quality within a stormwater treatment pond at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Stormwater is very low quality compared to reuse water. In most respects, reuse water also will be better quality than the well water presently being used to augment the pond. It is expected to be better quality than unimpacted water in the receiving waterbody with respect to nitrogen content and only slightly worse with respect to phosphorus content. The addition of reuse water should not promote more algal growth; rather, it should reduce the likelihood of algal growth. It also should not increase the incidences of fish kills in Lake 7. Nor should it alter the nutrient concentrations in Lake 7 so as to result in an imbalance of the natural population of aquatic flora and fauna. In the draft permit originally proposed to be issued to the Club, permit conditions required that water quality be monitored at the point of discharge to waters of the state. This requirement was eliminated from the revised permit as the District determined that it was not necessary in light of the modification of the system to retain the 100-year storm event. The subject design does not account for recovery of the water quality treatment volume within a specified period of time. However, there is no such requirement in District rules when a pond entirely retains the 100-year storm event, as is the case with this project. Even if there were a discharge from the surface water management system in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event, the Club gave reasonable assurances that water quality standards in the receiving waterbody would not be violated because of the effects of dilution. This project will not cause discharges which result in any violations of applicable state water quality standards for surface waters of the state. Based on a number of factors, including the peak rate factor, the curve number and the seasonal high water elevation, the water level in Lake 7 would reach an elevation of 33.57 if a 100-year storm event occurs. This results in the retention of the 100-year storm in Lake 7. The District only considers the 100-year storm event, by itself. It does not consider other rainfall events before or after it. However, the District does presume that ponds are at their seasonal high water level when the 100-year storm event occurs and that the ground is saturated. With respect to the seasonal high water level, there was substantial conflicting testimony. The Club's consultant used a seasonal high water level of 31.0' for Lake No. 7 in his calculations. This was based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Ardaman & Associates. A seasonal high water elevation of 31.0' was also used in the original permit application in 1985. In concluding that the seasonal high water level should be 31.0, the Ardaman report relied on several assumptions, including plugging of the underdrain and overflow weir and no discharges into or pumping out of the lake. These assumptions were made to establish an historical water level. The Petitioners' consultant disputed the determination in the Ardaman report that the seasonal high for Lake No. 7 was 31 on the grounds that the report indicated groundwater levels of 32.8 on three sides of the lake. He also felt that water levels would rise in the lake over time as a result of it being, allegedly, a closed system. While he did not have an opinion as to what the appropriate seasonal high should be, he felt it would be higher than 31 but lower than 32.8. However, he did no modeling with respect to calculating a seasonal high water level and would normally rely on a geotechnical engineer, such as Ardaman & Associates, to calculate seasonal high water levels. The District generally does not receive information as extensive and detailed as that included in the Ardaman report when it reviews permit applications. Among other things, the Ardaman report indicates a gradient across Lake No. 7 which makes the determination of the seasonal high for the lake difficult. The groundwater flow gradient results from the fact that the elevation of Lake No. 6 is approximately three feet lower than the elevation in Lake No. 7. The elevation determined by Ardaman may well be conservative in that the seasonal high of 31 is above the midpoint of the gradient. Although Lake 7 will be designed as an essentially closed system, it will have inflow from rainfall, surface runoff, introduction of reuse water and groundwater inflow, and outflows by way of evapotranspiration, withdrawal for irrigation purposes, and groundwater outflows. To alleviate any concerns about the validity of the seasonal high, it would be reasonable to include a permit condition requiring the Club to monitor the water level in Lake 7 on a daily basis, using staff gauges, after modification of the control structure. If such monitoring indicated that the seasonal high water level exceeds 31.0, the District could consider options to address that situation, including reducing the level at which reuse water is introduced into the lake or requiring water quality monitoring at the point of discharge to receiving waters. Groundwater quality is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection, not by the District. The DEP permit issued to Sarasota County for disposal of reuse water at the Club golf course requires the installation of two groundwater monitoring wells, one in fairly close proximity to Lake No. 7. The Overlooked Pond There is a small retention pond northwest of Lake 7, near lot 113. Neither the Club nor the District considered the effect of the Club's late modification of its application on the retention pond northwest of Lake 7 and adjacent properties. Lake 7 and the retention pond to its northwest are connected by an equalizer pipe. As a result, water levels in the pond will be affected by water levels in Lake 7. There was no evidence as to the elevations of the banks of the retention pond. There was no evidence as to whether the modifications to the Club's application will result in flooding of properties adjacent to the pond. There was no evidence that the Club owns or controls the retention pond or the properties adjacent to it that might be affected by flooding that might result from the modifications to the Club's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the Club's amended application. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2196 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease. Accepted and incorporated. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease and from which the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7 can be determined. Accepted and incorporated. But the topographic survey, together with other evidence, does show the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that uses must be "specifically authorized" in that the lease authorizes the use of the premises for a "golf course," which is presumed to include uses inherent to the operation of a golf course that may not be further specified in the lease, such as drainage facilities, like Lake 7, and facilities for irrigation of the golf course. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Club does not pay for the maintenance of Lake 7, at least as between the Club and its lessor, which is the subject of the pertinent lease provision. (There was evidence as to a dispute between the Club and the Petitioners, or at least some of them, as to who is responsible for maintenance of land in the vicinity of the western extent of Lake 7 and the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that there are "A" parcels between lots 115 through 120 and Lake 7. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Not clear whether all of the activities listed in the second sentence are done in the entire area up to the water's edge but, otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. Rejected. The intent of the parties is not clear and is the subject of litigation in state circuit court. 17.-18. Accepted that some probably used the words "to the water's edge"; others may have said "to the lake" or "to the approximate high water line." Regardless of what they said, the legal consequences are being litigated in state circuit court. Subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. 19.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.. Last sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The evidence was sufficient to place on Exhibit M-16 the boundary lines of the "A" parcels, as depicted on the Alberti boundary survey that was attached to the individual deeds to all of the "A" parcels, in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and other topographical features depicted on Exhibit M-16. The 0.679 acre total for the "A" parcels was merely transcribed from the Alberti boundary survey (probably incorrectly, as the boundary survey seems to indicate the acreage to be 0.674, plus or minus.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, it will spread more than before the modifications, up to a maximum spread of approximately ten feet. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The Club gave reasonable assurances that the spread would be contained within its leasehold interest. However, consideration would have to be given to modifying the permit if the state circuit court determines in the pending litigation that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank." Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted. Self-evident and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. It does not prohibit it; it just does not authorize it. It provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 32.-36. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) 37. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that discharges will be "likely." (Accepted and incorporated that no discharges are expected as a result of storm events up to and including a 100-year storm event unless preceding conditions predispose the system to discharge during a 100-year storm event.) 38.-39. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As for 39., very little construction will be required for the proposed project.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First, Lake 7 will not be "maintained" at 31'; rather, when it falls below 30.5', a half inch will be added. Second, it is not clear that the Ardaman report established an "artificially low seasonal high water level." (There is a hydraulic gradient across Lake 7 from east to west, approximately. The Ardaman report assumed no flow into or out of Lake 7; it also assumed no pumpage into or out of the lake.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is based "solely" on that assumption. Accepted and incorporated that it is based on that and on other assumptions. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) Rejected as not supported by evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the impact is obvious--the water level in the pond will be approximately equal to the water level in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, so will the water level in the pond. 47.-48. Accepted and incorporated. 49.-50. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated. 8. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was more to the application than just substitution of reuse for well water. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-22. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (The two District witnesses disagreed.) Even if true, subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 28.-29. Accepted; subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 30. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence, subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 31.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 39.-40. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law; rest, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and in part conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found; second sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. 53.-55. Accepted, but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated. 57.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 63. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire D. Robert Hoyle, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Flroida 34206 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuser & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston,Esq. General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Application No. 75-00196 is a request by the Standard Sand and Silica Company, for a consumptive water use permit. This application is for an existing use involving withdrawal from one well. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 1.6925 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 2.16 million gallons per day. The sought-for withdrawal will not exceed the water crop as defined by the district, with the withdrawal consumptively using only 35 percent of the water crop. The water will be used on site for the washing of sand. Mr. Clifton W. Golden is an adjacent landowner who testified that he was afraid of salt water intrusion and that a sink hole might develop because of the vast quantities of water taken from the aquifer by the applicant. He does not feel that the issuance of a permit would be consistent with the public interest. He presented no hydrological data showing that issuance of the permit would adversely affect his property. Mary Fausteen Thompson is a property owner adjacent to the site from which the water will be taken. She has had problems in the past with Standard Sand and Silica Company apparently discharging excess water on to her property. She thinks those problems may be occurring again, causing some of her property to be flooded. The sought-for consumptive use will not significantly induce salt water intrusion. Except as otherwise noted in the findings of fact, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. Several letters of objections have been received in addition to the objectors noted above. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That no off-site runoff be permitted by the applicant. That flowmeters be placed on the well and quarterly reports made to the district.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 75-00196 be granted with the conditions set forth in paragraph 7 above. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Eugene W. Harris Standard Sand and Silica Co. P.O. Box 35 Davenport, Florida 33837 Mrs. Mary Fausteen Thompson Box 82-C, Evans Road Polk City, Florida Mr. Clifton W. Golden 800 Oriole Drive Virginia Beach, Florida 23451 Mr. John C. Jones Executive Director Florida Wildlife Federation 4080 North Haverhill Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's water use permit should be revoked for nonuse of the permit for a period of two years or more.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The District is a state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing water use permits under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40B- 2 for the geographic area under its statutory jurisdiction. Alachua County is within that geographic jurisdiction. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices at 700 Northwest Cheeota Avenue, High Springs, in northern Alachua County. It owns approximately 700 acres in High Springs (west of Interstate Highway 75) on which it operates a church retreat and summer camping and recreational facility known as Camp Kulaqua. The property surrounds, and is contiguous to, Hornsby Spring, a first-order magnitude spring (having a flow rate of 100 CFS or greater) which, under normal conditions, discharges into the nearby Santa Fe River. Hornsby Spring is one of 296 documented springs within the District's jurisdiction. After receiving an overture from a representative of a private water bottling company, on September 28, 1999, Respondent filed an application for a General Water Use Permit in Township 7 South, Range 17 East, Section 26, in High Springs. In its application, Respondent represented that it desired a daily allocation of 2,000,000 gallons; that it intended to install two 12-inch wells, each having a capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute, just east of, and upgradient from, Hornsby Spring; and that all water withdrawals would be used in conjunction with a privately-owned commercial spring water bottling facility to be located on its property. The application also represented that the facility would employ 36 persons and operate 168 hours per week. The application was reviewed by a former District hydrogeologist, William H. Kirk. During the review process, and in response to Mr. Kirk's request for more information, Respondent provided a comparison of the requested allocation with the overall flow of Hornsby Spring. This was because Mr. Kirk was concerned that the requested allocation was "a bit high," and he wanted to ensure that the issuance of the permit would not cause harm to, or adversely affect, the water resources. Under a professional guideline that Mr. Kirk used, if the applicant could show that the cumulative amount being withdrawn was to be less than ten percent of what the available data showed to be the mean spring flow, the District would consider it to be "an acceptable impact." Notwithstanding Mr. Kirk's use of this guideline, the District points out that there is no District rule or policy sanctioning the ten percent rule, and at hearing it denied that this standard is used by the District in assessing water use applications. Further, the Permit itself does not refer to a relationship between spring flow and the size of the allocation. Even so, this analysis was considered by Mr. Kirk in determining whether Respondent had given reasonable assurance that the spring would not be impacted. In its response to the request for additional information, Respondent reduced its requested allocation to 750,000 gallons per day and indicated that if a bottling plant were to be constructed on its property, approximately 700,000 gallons of the total allocation would be consumed in "bulk transfer and bottling," with the remainder for camp use. More specifically, Respondent indicated that it would allocate 490,000 gallons per day for bulk transport, 210,000 gallons per day for spring bottling water, and 50,000 gallons per day for incidental uses at its property. By reducing the allocation from 2,000,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day, Respondent's requested average daily allocation represented only 0.4 percent of the average daily spring flow as measured over the last 28 years. The reduced allocation satisfied Mr. Kirk's concern that Respondent demonstrate a reasonable demand and a reasonable need for that allocation, and he recommended approval of the application.2 On February 25, 2000, the District approved the application and issued Water Use Permit No. 2-99-00130 (Permit).3 The Permit authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.7500 million gallons per day (750,000 gallons per day) or a maximum daily withdrawal and use of 0.7500 million gallons per day with an annual allocation not to exceed 273.750 million gallons (273,750,000 gallons) per calendar year in conjunction with the operation of a privately-owned water bottling plant. The Permit expires on February 25, 2020. After the Permit was issued, under the regulatory process in place, Respondent was required first to obtain a permit for a temporary test well which would be used to collect information concerning the site of the proposed activity, and to then file an application for permits authorizing the construction and operation of the two 12-inch production wells. The Permit contains a number of conditions, two of which require a brief comment. First, Condition No. 2 provides that "[t]his permit is classified as unconfined [F]loridan aquifer for privately owned bottled water plant." This means that all water withdrawals must be made from the unconfined Floridan aquifer, as opposed to the spring head of Hornsby Spring. (Respondent's proposed siting of its two production wells 660 yards east of the spring is consistent with this provision.) Second, Condition No. 4 provides that "[t]he permittee shall submit daily pumpage records on a monthly basis to the [District]." Pumpage reports are filed by permittees so that the District can determine whether the permit is actually being used, and if so, to ensure that the amount of water being withdrawn under the permit does not exceed the authorized allocation. As it turned out, pumpage reports were never filed by Respondent. (However, the record shows that the District has never strictly enforced this requirement for any permittee.) In late 2002, the District staff undertook a review of the nine water bottling permit holders within its jurisdiction, including Respondent. That category of permit holders was selected for review because of the small number of permits and the limited resources of the District staff. (In all, the District has probably issued several thousand permits to other types of users.) On February 4, 2003, the District served its Complaint under the authority of Sections 120.60 and 373.243, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-2.341. As grounds for revoking the permit, the District alleged that there was "non-use of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of two (2) years or more." Although Respondent contends that it should have been given an opportunity to correct the nonuse allegation before the Complaint was issued, nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act or District rules requires that this be done. Until the issuance of the Complaint against Respondent in early 2003, and similar Complaints against eight other permit holders at the same time, the District had never invoked this statutory provision.4 There is no evidence to support Respondent's contention that the Complaints were issued for "purely political reasons." On March 4, 2003, Respondent requested a formal hearing challenging the District's proposed action. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the issues have been broadly described as follows: whether Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes, is to be strictly or liberally construed; whether Respondent's nonuse is based upon extreme hardship for reasons beyond its control; and whether the District is equitably estopped from permit revocation. (According to the District, even if the Permit is revoked, such revocation is without prejudice to Respondent reapplying for, and receiving, another permit so long as it meets all applicable requirements.) Equitable Estoppel Respondent first contends that the District is estopped from revoking its Permit on the theory that, under the circumstances here, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. For that doctrine to apply, however, Respondent must show that the District made a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; that Respondent relied upon that representation; and that the District then changed its position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent. See, e.g., Salz v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 432 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The District issued Respondent's Permit on the condition that Respondent operate in conformity with all pertinent statutes and regulations. This finding is consistent with language on the face of the Permit, which states that the Permit "may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder." Respondent relied on the District's representation that it could use the Permit so long as it complied with all statutes and regulations. In reliance on that representation, in addition to staff time, after its Permit was issued, Respondent expended "somewhere around" $70,000.00 to $74,000.00 for conducting water quality testing; sending cave divers underground to ascertain the correct location of the portion of the aquifer on which to place its production wells; drilling a 6-inch test well in August 2000; obtaining the City of High Springs' approval in March 2000 for industrial zoning on a 10-acre tract of land on which to site a "water plant"; and engaging the services of a professional who assisted Respondent in "seeking out businesses and getting the right qualifications of the spring water to make sure that it was a marketable water." The District has never asserted anything different from its original position: that if Petitioner complied with all statutes and rules, it could continue to lawfully make water withdrawals under its Permit. The issuance of the Complaint did not represent a change in the District's position. Because a change in position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent did not occur, the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel are not present. Was the Permit Used? A preliminary review by District staff indicated that Respondent had never filed the daily pumpage reports on a monthly basis and had never requested permits authorizing the construction of the two 12-inch production wells. These preliminary observations were confirmed at final hearing, along with the fact that Respondent has never entered into an agreement with a water bottling company (although draft agreements were once prepared); that Respondent has never constructed a water bottling facility; and that no operations were ever conducted under the Permit. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent did not use its Permit for the two-year period after it was issued, as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's contention that the evidence fails to support this finding belies the evidence of record. In an effort to show that it actually used the Permit, Respondent points out that in August 2000 it applied for, and received a permit to construct, an unmetered 6-inch test well in association with its General Water Use Permit. (Respondent sometimes erroneously refers to the test well as a test production well. This is incorrect as the well is a test well, and not a production well.) After the test well was installed, at some point Respondent says it began withdrawing approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water from that well for incidental uses associated with the operation of Camp Kulaqua.5 These withdrawals were made on the assumption that the test well permit fell under the broad umbrella of the General Water Use Permit. (Respondent also has a permitted 6- inch diameter well and an unregulated 4-inch well on its premises, both of which are used for water supply needs at Camp Kulaqua.) It is true, as Respondent asserts, that its Permit authorized incidental withdrawals of up to 50,000 gallons per day for unspecified uses at Camp Kulaqua. However, these withdrawals are authorized under the General Water Use Permit and not the test well permit. The two permits are separate and distinct. On the one hand, a test well is intended to be temporary in nature and used only for the purpose of test well development and collecting information regarding the height of the aquifer and water quality at the site of the proposed activity. Conversely, withdrawals for any other purpose, even incidental, must be made from the production wells, which are only authorized by the General Water Use Permit. Before a test well can be used for normal consumptive purposes, the permit holder must seek a modification of the permit to include it as a part of its general water use permit. Here, no such modification was sought by Respondent, and no authorization was given by the District. Therefore, Respondent's incidental water uses associated with its test well cannot be counted as "uses" for the purpose of complying with the use requirement in Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes. In light of the District's credible assertion to the contrary, Respondent's contention that it is common practice to lawfully withdraw water from a test well for incidental consumptive purposes has been rejected. (It is noted, however, that the District has not charged Respondent with violating the terms of its test well permit.) Extreme Hardship Under Section 373.243, Florida Statutes (which was enacted in 1972), the District is authorized to revoke a water use permit "for nonuse of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of 2 years." However, if the user "can prove that his or her nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control," revocation of the permit is not warranted. The phrase "extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control" is not defined by statute or rule. In the context of this case, however, the District considers an extreme hardship to occur under two scenarios. First, if the aquifer level has dropped so low due to drought conditions that a permit holder cannot access the water through its well, its nonuse is excusable. Alternatively, if an emergency order has been issued by the District directing permit holders (including Respondent) to stop pumping due to certain conditions, an extreme hardship has occurred. (Presumably, a severe water shortage would precipitate such an order.) In this case, the District issued a water shortage advisory, but not an emergency order, due to a "severe drought," indicating that users could still pump water, but were encouraged to voluntarily reduce their usage. This advisory remained in effect from the summer of 1998 until the spring of 2003, when a severe drought ended. However, no emergency order was ever issued by the District. Respondent contends that its nonuse was due to an extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control. More specifically, it argues that a severe drought occurred in Alachua County during the years 1998-2003, and that under these conditions, federal regulations prevented it from withdrawing water for bottling purposes, which was the primary purpose for securing a permit. Further, even if it had withdrawn water during these drought conditions, such withdrawals could have adversely impacted Hornsby Spring and constituted a violation of a District requirement that water resources not be adversely impacted. Because an investment of several hundred thousand dollars was required to drill and install the two production wells, Respondent contends it was not financially prudent to make that type of investment and begin operations until normal spring conditions returned. These contentions are discussed in greater detail below. Around September 7, 1999, a representative of a water bottling company first approached Respondent about the possibility of the two jointly operating a water bottling plant and/or transporting water in bulk from Respondent's property. Prompted by this interest, less than three weeks later Respondent filed its application for a water use permit (although at that time it did not mention on the application that off-site bulk transfers would occur), and a permit was eventually issued in February 2000. Later, and through a professional firm it employed, Respondent had discussions with representatives of several bottling companies, including Great Springs Waters of America (Great Springs) and Perrier Group of America. Apparently, these more serious discussions with a potential suitor did not take place until either late 2000 or the spring of 2001. Periodic measurements taken by District staff at Hornsby Spring reflected natural drought conditions from April 2000 to April 2003. As noted earlier, this was the product of a "severe drought" which took place between the summer of 1998 and the spring of 2003; the drought was one of a magnitude that occurs only once in every 50 to 100 years. During the years 2000 through 2002, the spring had zero flow or was barely flowing much of the time.6 Had Respondent pumped water during 20 out of the 24 months after the Permit was issued, it could have potentially violated the requirement that it not harm Hornsby Spring. This fact is acknowleged by a District witness who agreed that if the "spring is not flowing, . . . [pumping] would have an [adverse] impact." Even as late as October 2003, the spring had tannic discoloration caused by the lengthy drought conditions. The parties agree, however, that there is no water shortage in the District at the present time. To illustrate the difficulty that it experienced in obtaining a joint venture partner for water bottling purposes, Respondent established that in the spring of 2001, a Great Springs representative visited the site when the spring was "barely flowing." For obvious reasons, Respondent could not "bring a party there who would want to enter into a business [agreement]" under those conditions. These same conditions remained in effect during most of the two year period. The District points out, however, that even though the spring was low or barely flowing, so long as the aquifer itself was not too low, Respondent could still withdraw water from the aquifer, since Condition 2 of the Permit authorizes withdrawals from the aquifer, and not the spring. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that when a spring ceases to flow, the aquifer has simply dropped below the level of the spring vent; even under these circumstances, however, there may still be a substantial quantity of water in the aquifer available for pumping. Assuming that it could still lawfully pump water when the spring was dry or barely flowing without causing adverse impacts to the spring, Respondent was still subject to federal regulations which govern the bottling of spring water. See Title 21, Part 165, C.F.R. For spring water to be marketed as bottled "spring water," 21 C.F.R. § 165.119(2)(vi) requires that the water "be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring." This means that the bore hole had to be physically connected with the cave system feeding Hornsby Spring or produce water of the same quality as that discharging from the spring. The regulation goes on to provide that "[i]f spring water is collected with the use of an external force [such as by a pump], water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice." While this regulation obviously does not prohibit Respondent from pumping water, since that authority lies within the District's exclusive jurisdiction, it does provide that in order to use spring water for bottling purposes, the water must continue to flow naturally from the aquifer to the spring. If it does not, the water cannot be used for this purpose. Because Hornsby Spring had zero flow for parts of 2001 and 2002, and severely reduced flows during most of the other time during the two-year period ending February 2002, Respondent was effectively prevented by the foregoing regulation from using the water for bottling purposes. Therefore, Respondent's nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control -- a severe drought lasting throughout the two-year period after the Permit was issued, and federal regulations which prevented it from using water for the purpose for which the Permit was issued. Thus, the nonuse is excusable.
The Issue The issues are whether the proposed amendment to Rule 40E- 2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, exceeds the agency's grant of rulemaking authority; enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific law implemented; or is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency discretion, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Osceola Fish Farmers Association, Inc. (OFFA), is a non-profit corporation whose members consist of tropical fish farmers in Osceola County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that OFFA has standing to bring this action. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District or Respondent), is a public corporation operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Among other things, the District has the authority to regulate the uses of water within its geographic boundaries, including Osceola County. On an undisclosed date, the District began test drawdowns (a lowering of the elevation of the water through control structures) in the Alligator Chain of Lakes just east of St. Cloud in Osceola County, where OFFA's members are engaged in tropical fish farming. The drawdowns were undertaken for the purpose of allowing the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to conduct demucking activities in the lakes to enhance aquatic habitat. Prior to beginning work, the FFWCC obtained an Environmental Resource Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). However, the District did not require either itself or the FFWCC to obtain a consumptive use permit on the theory that a lake drawdown for demucking activities was not a consumptive use and therefore did not require a permit. In an effort to halt future scheduled drawdowns, OFFA participated in a United States Army Corps of Engineers proceeding which culminated in the preparation of an Economic Impact Statement for FFWCC's drawdowns; filed a complaint with DEP under Section 373.219(2), Florida Statutes, alleging that an unlawful consumptive use (without a permit) was taking place (which complaint was found to be insufficient); filed an action for injunctive relief in circuit court under Section 403.412, Florida Statutes (which was dismissed or dropped for undisclosed reasons); and finally initiated a proceeding against the District under Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, alleging that the District had adopted "an incipient non-rule policy of exempting lake 'drawdowns' from water use permitting requirements" (DOAH Case No. 00-3615RU). To avoid the consequences of an adverse ruling in the latter action, the District began rulemaking proceedings to adopt an amendment to Rule 40E-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, to codify its policy relative to lake drawdowns. As amended, the rule reads as follows: Unless expressly exempt by law or District rule, a water use permit must be obtained from the District prior to any use or withdrawal of water. The drawdown of lakes for environmental, recreational, or flood control purposes is not regulated by Chapter 40E-2 or 40E-20, F.A.C. (Underscored language represents amended language). Petitioner has challenged only the amendment, and not the existing rule. The effect of the rule is obvious - a lake drawdown for one of the three stated purposes in the rule will not require a permit, while all other lake drawdowns will. As specific authority for the proposed amendment, the District cites Sections 373.044 and 373.113, Florida Statutes. The former statute authorizes the District to "adopt rules pursuant to [Chapter 120] to implement the provisions of this chapter," while the latter statute authorizes it to "adopt rules pursuant to [Chapter 120] to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it." The District has cited Sections 373.103(1), 373.219, and 373.244, Florida Statutes, as the specific laws being implemented. The first statute provides that if specifically authorized by DEP, the District has the authority to "administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter, including the permit systems established in parts II, III, and IV of [Chapter 373], consistent with the water implementation rule"; the second statute provides in relevant part that the District may "require such permits for consumptive use of water and may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that such use is consistent with the overall objectives of the district or department and is not harmful to the water resources of the area"; and the third statute provides for the issuance of temporary permits while a permit application is pending. In regulating the uses of water within its boundaries, the District administers a comprehensive consumptive water use permit program under Part II, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Both parties agree that under Section 373.219(1), Florida Statutes (2000), all "consumptive uses" of water require a permit, except for the "domestic consumption of water by individual users," which use is specifically exempted by the same statute. The global requirement for permits is also found in Rule 40E-2.041 (the rule being amended), as well as Rule 40E- 1.602(1), which provides in relevant part that unless expressly exempted by statute or rule, "[a] water use individual or general permit pursuant to Chapters 40E-2 or 40E-20, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to use or withdrawal of water " The term "consumptive uses" is not defined by statute, but the District has promulgated a rule defining that term. By Rule 40E-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, the District has adopted by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications with the South Florida Water Management District." Section 1.8 of that document contains definitions of various terms used in the permitting program, including "consumptive use," which is defined as "[a]ny use of water which reduces the supply from which it is withdrawn or diverted." The District's policy for lake drawdowns, as proposed in the rule amendment, is inconsistent with this definition. On this disputed issue, Petitioner's evidence is accepted as being the most persuasive, and it is found that a lake drawdown for any purpose is a consumptive use of water. Section 373.219(1), cited as a specific law being implemented, provides that the District "may require such permits for consumptive use of water and may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure such use is consistent with the overall objectives of the district and department and is not harmful to the water resources of the area." The District construes this language as authorizing it to decide which uses of water are a "consumptive use," and which are not, and to implement a rule which codifies those decisions relative to lake drawdowns. Not surprisingly, Petitioner views the statute in a different manner and argues that the statute simply allows the District to create a permit program that is consistent with Chapter 373; that under the law a permit is required for all consumptive uses, including lake drawdowns; and that the District has no authority to carve out an exception for a lake drawdown from the permitting process, no matter what the purpose. As noted above, the District has identified three instances (for environmental, recreational, and flood control purposes) when a lake drawdown does not require a consumptive use permit. These terms are not so vague that a person of common intelligence would have difficulty understanding them. However, the proposed rule contains no prescribed standards to guide the District in its administration of the rule.
Findings Of Fact The CLDD was established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, on August 4, 1967. Its purpose was to "reclaim" or render the land within its boundaries usable for agricultural purposes. The land comprising the CLDD consists of approximately 3,500 acres in Lee County, mostly planted in citrus trees. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, a "Plan of Reclamation" was prepared by consulting engineers for the CLDD's Board of Supervisors in August, 1967. That plan contains provisions for reclaiming lands within the CLDD's boundaries and for managing and controlling surface water within CLDD. The method of water control outlined in the 1967 reclamation plan included a dike and ditch system around the boundaries of CLDD with a series of interior canals to carry excess water away from the citrus trees. The land in the north part of he CLDD is higher than the south and water generally, naturally flows from north to south. The interior canals were designed to carry water in accordance with existing contours of the land and eventually discharge excess surface water to the rim ditches on the north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," which is south of the CLDD and which was then owned by the C&SFFCD, the predecessor agency to SFWMD. The system of drainage delineated in that 1967 plan, inaugurated pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, was put into effect substantially as described therein. CLDD's 1967 plan was altered somewhat because of an agreement entered into on September 30, 1971, between the CLDD and neighboring landowner Kenneth Daniels. Pursuant to that agreement, the two parties agreed to extend the dike on the west side of the CLDD property and construct a ditch from a point 50 feet north of the northwest corner of the Petitioner Mellor's property, which new ditch was to run southwest across the Daniels' property and connect with Spanish Creek. That ditch or canal would thus connect the western rim ditch of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" with Spanish Creek and have the result that surface waters could be discharged from CLDD lands through the western rim ditch of Spoil Area "M" thence through the "Daniels' Ditch" finally discharging into the lower reaches of Spanish Creek. (see Exhibits 1 and 11) Because the western side or western rim canal of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" had not been used under the original plan of reclamation approved by the C&SFFCD, CLDD sought permission from C&SFFCD to use this western rim canal for the purpose stated pursuant to the agreement with Daniels. Thus, CLDD's proposed use of the rim canal of Spoil Area "M" would be confined to the western, northern and eastern perimeter canals and not the southern boundary canal. All affected landowners, Kenneth Daniels as well a Jake and Lilly Lee, agreed to those proposed installations and uses. The resulting agreement between CLDD and C&SFFCD was entered into on October 12, 1972, and describes the flood control District land to be used by CLDD as a 100 foot wide strip running along the west, north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," also know as "Aspic." This 100 foot wide strip of land running thusly is co-extensive with the rim ditch of Spoil Area "M." The CLDD was mandated by this agreement to install 72- inch pipes in the rim ditch at the southwest corner of the spoil area, just north of the Mellor property, giving a point of discharge from the western rim ditch into the Daniels' Ditch with similar pipes connecting that Daniels' Ditch with Spanish Creek, such that the canal between these two points could carry water from the west rim ditch to Spanish Creek. The easement incorporated in this agreement was to last for five years with an option for a five-year renewal, which option was exercised. At the end of this 10-year period, SFWMD, successor to C&SFFCD, notified CLDD that because its statutory authority had since changed, the easement could not be renewed and that CLDD would have to seek the subject permit so as to be authorized to use works and lands of the District. The requirements to be met by an applicant for a right-of-way permit such as this one are set out in Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, and SFWMD's permitting information manual, Vol. V, Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District, July, 1981, which is incorporated by reference in that rule. In that connection, the permit at issue, if granted, would not cause an interference with the "works" of the District, that is dikes, ditches, flood control structures arid drainage structures because it would merely renew the pre-existing authorized use. The permit will not be inconsistent with an comprehensive water use plan developed by the District. Further, the permit applicant owns or leases the land adjacent to the portion of the "works of the District" involved herein that is the east, north and west rim ditches of Spoil Area "M," the Daniels' Ditch and the pipes at either end of it coupled with the water control structures at the southeast corner and southwest corners of Spoil Area "M," which control water entering the south rim ditch. CLDD has a surface water management permit, issued in August, 1980, which is a prerequisite to the granting of the subject right-of-way permit. It remains in full force and effect. That surface water management permit authorizes "operation of a water management system serving 3,642 acres of agricultural lands by a network of canals and control structures, with a perimeter dike and canal discharging into Cypress Creek." The "surface permit" authorized the system of drainage and discharge in existence at the time of its issuance, May 8, 1980. The system of drainage, at the day of the hearing, consisted of the same basic water flow and discharge pattern that existed for approximately 10 years, and this permit would allow that to be continued, thus, there will not be any additional effect on environmentally sensitive lands occasioned by an issuance of the subject right-of-way permit. The surface water management permit, by its terms, refers initially to the operation of a water management system" . . . discharging into Cypress Creek." The reference to "Cypress Creek" was an administrative error. The express language on the face of the permit authorization incorporates by reference the application, including all plans and specifications attached thereto, as addressed by the staff report, and those materials, including the staff report, are a part of the permit. The complete permit, including all those documents incorporated by reference, makes it clear that the authorization of the surface water management permit was that the system of drainage in existence at the time of permit issuance (1980) was that which was being approved, and that included discharge to Spanish Creek and not Cypress Creek. Discharge of water to Cypress Creek as an alternative was never recommended or authorized by that surface water management permit. This is clearly the intent expressed in the permit in view of the language contained in a special condition of that surface water management permit imposed by the SFWMD as a condition for issuance which stated as follows: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit the permittee shall submit for staff approval a proposal and schedule for the elimination of the adverse impacts being created by the operation of the permittee's water management system, which can be legally and physically accomplished by the permittee. Adverse impacts are considered herein to be reduced flows to Spanish Creek and increased flows to Cypress Creek. Thus, it is obvious that the authorization of the surface water management permit was designed to provide for discharge into Spanish Creek and to enhance the flows to Spanish Creek pursuant to a required proposal which the permittee submitted to SFWMD. Thus, the right-of-way permit applied for herein is consistent with the valid surface water management permit held by the permit applicant in this proceeding. Petitioners William H. and Patricia H. Mellor are co-owners of parcels of property lying some distance south of Spoil Area "4" in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee River. This property does not abut the spoil area at any point. Spanish Creek does cross their property several thousand feet south of the south boundary of the spoil area. In the past, particularly in 1982, water flowing from the south rim ditch of the spoil area through a break in the dike of that south rim ditch, has flowed through a ditch known as Dry Creek in a generally southerly direction under S.R. 78 and has washed out an access road constructed by William Mellor which leads from Highway 78 to his property. He had this washout repaired at his own expense in 1982. The washout was caused by water from CLDD flowing into the south rim canal of Spoil Area "M," that is, the ditch that traverses (and defines) the southerly boundary of the spoil area. Mr. Mellor admitted, however, that SFWMD had at least partially plugged the opening in the south rim ditch which had allowed flow down the Dry Creek ditch and wash out his road. If closed water control structures are maintained at the southwest and southeast corners of the spoil area ditches, then no water could flow into the south rim canal and no such injury could again be caused. Petitioner's Jim English and Patricia Mellor are co-owners of a 45- acre parcel of land located in the southwest corner of Spoil Area "M." The five acres forming the extreme southwest corner of the spoil area do not belong to these Petitioners, but are owned by one Lynwood Brown, who is not a party to this proceeding. The English/Mellor property forms a part of the spoil area, but does not adjoin or constitute any part of the spoil area which is sought to be used by CLDD through the proposed right-of-way use permit (as clarified by CLDD's stipulation). The south rim ditch, either part of, or adjoined by their property, has been used for water storage in the past (they maintain illegally) 1/ Mr. Tom Pancoast has observed Spanish Creek frequently over a nine- year period starting in approximately 1973. He has often used those waters during that period for fishing. During the early years of his use and observation of Spanish Creek, the water flowed out of Spanish Creek into the Caloosahatchee River. Beginning in about 1976, the water appeared to be flowing in the opposite direction, from the river into Spanish Creek. Contemporaneous with this hydrologic change, the creek has become increasingly characterized by siltation and hyacinth growth. Mr. William Mellor owns property along the course of Spanish Creek. He has used the stream for recreational purposes, picnicking where the stream traverses his property. In recent years there has occurred a marked increase in the growth or profusion of aquatic plants of unidentified types in the creek, reduced clarity and reduced flows or volumes of water in the creek. Witness English has made a similar observation. Witness James English has a substantial degree of training by formal education and experience in water management and drainage practices and methods, particularly as they relate to citrus grove development and management in southwest Florida. Mr. English has observed Spanish Creek regularly for most of his life, including the region of its headwaters in the "Cow Prairie Cypress," a remnant wetland cypress strand lying within the CLDD immediately north of Soil Area "M." The chief adverse impact of the CLDD water management system is reduced flow to Spanish Creek, especially its upper reaches since the advent of the "Daniels' Ditch" as a drainage route and discharge point into lower Spanish Creek. However, the only special condition on the issuance of the surface water management permit approving CLDD's extant water management system was the requirement that CLDD should submit a plan for eliminating that adverse effect, which it did (as Petitioner English admits). Beyond the submission of such a plan, no concrete action designed to restore historic flows to Spanish Creek has yet begun, however. The restoration of historic flows, adequate in volume and quality, to the entire creek system would require discharging water from CLDD's system to the Cow Prairie Cypress area at the headwaters of the creek rather than substantially further downstream at the present Daniels' Ditch site. The Petitioners' complaints (aside from the issue of adequacy of flows in Spanish Creek), although meritorious, are, because of stipulations asserted by CLDD during the course of this proceeding, now rendered moot. CLDD stipulated that it only seeks a permit to use the west, north and eastern spoil area ditches. It does not seek and stipulated that it will not use, at any time, the south rim ditch and will maintain water control structures so to block water from entering that ditch. This will alleviate the problem of potential storage of water on Petitioners English and Patricia Mellor's property and the erosion problem on Petitioners William and Patricia Mellor's property south of the spoil area. It was thus established that the issuance of the right-of-way permit will not cause the injuries these Petitioners have suffered in the past because of use of the south rim ditch for water drainage and storage.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District grant the County Line Drainage District's application for a permit for utilization of works and lands of the District. Subject to the following special condition: Issuance of this right-of-way permit does not relieve the Respondent CLDD from the responsibility of complying with special condition number 1 of the surface water management permit number 36-00184-S. Respondent CLDD shall, within 30 days of date of permitting, submit a design to the satisfaction of the SFWMD staff which will prevent the ability of CLDD to discharge to the southern rim ditch, described above. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive water use permit for six wells at the following locations: LATITUDE LONGITUDE 28 degrees 20' 50" 82 degrees 41' 36" (hereinafter referred to as Garden Terrace No.1) 28 degrees 20' 50" 82 degrees 41' 35" (hereinafter referred to as Garden Terrace No.2) 28 degrees 20' 55" 82 degrees 39' 11" (hereinafter referred to as Parkwood Acres No.1) 28 degrees 21' 20" 82 degrees 39' 11" (hereinafter referred to as Parkwood Acres No.2) 28 degrees 21' 49" 82 degrees 38' 56" (hereinafter referred to as New Well No.1) 28 degrees 21' 50" 82 degrees 38' 56" (hereinafter referred to as New Well No.2) Although included in the application, it appears from the record of this proceeding that Garden Terrace No. 1 is to be abandoned by applicant upon completion of its new facilities and therefore is not intended for inclusion in any consumptive water use permit issued pursuant hereto. Further, it appears from the records that the applicant intends to use Garden Terrace No. 2 as an emergency standby supply well only and therefore its average daily withdrawal as reflected on the application is not intended to be included in a consumptive water use permit issued pursuant hereto. Therefore, with those amendments the application seeks, from a total of five wells, a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,501,000 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 650,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public water supply and appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use consistent with the public interest and not interfering with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application. Further, according to testimony of the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District it does not appear that any of the matters set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.S., exist so as to require the denial of this permit. The staff recommendation is that this permit be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1.50 million gallons per day and an average daily withdrawal of .650 million gallons per day. The staff recommendations are subject to the following conditions: That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit with the exception of those wells which are currently gaged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter. Said pumpage shall be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15, for each preceding calendar quarter. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15 and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That to promote good water management and avoid salt water intrusion that the water be withdrawn at an average of .217 million gallons per day from each of the three following wells: Parkwood Acres Well No. 1, Parkwood Acres Well No. 2, and New Well No. 1. New Well No. 2 shall be operated only to meet peak demand. That Garden Terrace Well No. 2 be used only as an emergency standby well. The applicant entered no objections to the conditions set forth above nor were there any objections from members of the public to the issuance of this consumptive water use permit.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be issued for the five subject wells for the withdrawal of 1.30 mgd maximum daily withdrawal and .65 mgd, average daily withdrawal subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 4 above. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Delmar Water Corporation 731 West Main Street New Port Richey, Florida 33552
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations and special provisions set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida
