Findings Of Fact By application No. 2-7738 filed on June 29, 1981, Aquarina has requested a withdrawal for consumptive use of ground water in Brevard County in the amount of 468,000 gallons per day (850,000 gallons per day maximum) of raw water (before processing). The purpose of the proposed consumptive water use is a proposed development of 196+- acres in Brevard County located between Mullet Creek, a tributary of the Indian River and the Atlantic Ocean in South Brevard County. It is located on the barrier islands separated from the mainland by the Indian River, and is 13 miles south of Melbourne and 5 miles north of Indian River County. Aquarina proposes to develop a condominium community with a projected population of 3,500 persons consisting of 1,600 residences, a commercial area, and 500 hotel rooms. An on-site well field is proposed as well as reverse osmosis water treatment and wastewater treatment plants which are to be constructed near the southern boundary of the development. Two wells with a capacity of approximately 500 gallons per minute are proposed to be constructed and both will withdraw water from the Floridian Aquifer for conversion by reverse osmosis treatment into potable water. 3/ In addition to potable water supply requirements for the development, although part of the requirement will be met by wastewater, there is a requirement for irrigation water for landscaping. The Aquarina site has been zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) since 1973 and the proposed densities are in accordance with those established in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As a result of an earlier application of Aquarina for consumptive use, a temporary water use permit was granted by the District to allow Aquarina to drill test wells for aquifer testing before the present application for water use would be considered by the District. This earlier application is not now at issue. Pursuant to this temporary permit, Aquarina conducted an aquifer test program. During the first test, well #1 (the northernmost well) was utilized as a monitor or observation well for the test conducted on well #2, and an existing mosquito control well was also used as an observation well. A two-step pump test was run for 24 hours, with drawdown readings recorded at all three wells. The pump test analysis showed that the Floridian Aquifer transmissivity (the measure of the ability of the aquifer to transmit water) ranged from 173,000 gallons per day per foot at the observation wells to 87,000 gallons per day per foot at the discharge well. The total depth of these two wells was #1 -- 425 feet and #2 -- 412 feet. Following submission of the results of the first aquifer test and the application for consumptive use filed on June 29, 1981, the District staff prepared a Technical Staff Report (TSR) for the benefit of the District Governing Board based upon the two wells drilled pursuant to the temporary permit. However, because the proposed withdrawals would be from the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens which is a finite potable source of water rapidly being depleted by existing domestic uses and mosquito control wells, the TSR recommended, among other things, that the two wells be deepened to a depth below the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens and cased to the depth of 450 feet to insure that withdrawals occur from expected saltier water below the lens. Also, the District staff recommended that three mosquito control wells on the Aquarina property be properly plugged to eliminate fresh water loss from the lens due to the following wells. The three flowing mosquito control wells on the site were estimated to have been flowing at 432,000 gallons per day. The Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens from which Aquarina initially intended to withdraw its water appears as two underground bubbles or lenses of water fresher than the surrounding connate or saltier water. The lenses apparently are a result of stratigraphic entrapment of fresh water due to geological formations and are not being recharged with fresh water. When withdrawals are made from these lenses, salty or connate-water fills the void left by the fresher water following withdrawal. The two lenses were substantially larger during recent times but, because of many domestic uses as well as mosquito control wells which have been flowing freely, the reservoirs have shrunk significantly. Based upon present usage, the north portion of the lens will last until approximately the year 2000 at current rates of consumption and the south portion of the lens will last until approximately the year 2030 at current rates of consumption. Because of the impact on the Sebastian Inlet lens, the staff of the District could not recommend approval of Aquarina's application unless Aquarina agreed to three main conditions: The Applicant would case its production wells to 450 feet below the surface, to avoid interference with the freshwater reservoir. (Because of the combined factors of upward artesian pressure in the aquifer, the greater density of salt or connate water in relation to fresh- water, and the known range of transmis- sivity and storage factors for that portion of the aquifer [an underground waterbearing stratum or group of strata] in that geographical area, connate water would flow upward and from the sides into the area of the Applicant's withdrawal of water from beneath the lens, and the lighter, fresh water of the lens above would remain there, free from interfer- ence by the withdrawal.) The Applicant would have to plug all the preexisting mosquito control wells on the development site. The Applicant would have to undergo early monitoring of the chemical quality of this water and the water within the fresh water reservoir. As a result of Aquarina's agreement to meet these three conditions, the Technical Staff Report (TSR) issued by the District on August 20, 1981, recommended approval of the application with the addition of the above conditions. During the course of (1) deepening of well #2 to a depth of 650 feet and backplugging to 595 feet; (2) casing it to a depth of 450 feet; (3) performing a second aquifer test on the deeper well; and (4) evaluating the proposed withdrawals, Aquarina's consultants came to the following conclusions which were unrebutted by other evidence submitted at the final hearing: During the process of deepening well #2 to 650 feet, later backplugged to 595 feet, the consultants discovered an aquitard or confining layer made up of small clay-sized particles which retard the vertical flow of water at a depth of 440 to 450 feet. This well was cased to a depth of 450 feet or to the top of the aquitard. Before reaching this layer, the quality of water was generally declining with increasing depths. Below this layer, the quality of water improved to a depth of approximately 550 feet and the transmissivity was greater below the aquitard than above. Further, that same aquitard was also discovered in a mosquito control well on site when it was logged. Sufficient quantities of treatable water are available from the deepened well to supply the needs of the Aquarina project. That in both the June, 1991, and the subsequent aquifer test, there appeared to be interferences from other sources which impact the potentiometric pressure levels of the wells on the Aquarina site. These were identified as the South Brevard Utilities Corporation (SBUC) and nearby domestic well users. That the results of the June, 1981, test and computer modeling were that the impact of the proposed Aquarina with- drawls on existing nearby wells drilled to the shallower level was between a one to two foot decline in the potentiometric pressure. The average potentiometric pressure in the local aquifer is 27 feet above National Vertical Geodetic Datum (NVGD) or Mean Sea Level (MSL). These existing nearby wells were identified to be the SBUC well approximately 2,400 feet away from Aquarina and those wells of nearby homeowners in the same vicinity as the SBUC well. That flownet analysis (EPA computer model) of the results of the second aquifer test program revealed that approximately 6% of the water obtained from the deepened well would come from the layers above the aquitard, i.e. connate water and the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens. Based on this model, the effect on water quality for existing users of the proposed withdrawals was concluded to be insignificant and known existing users would not be harmed by the proposed withdrawals. The aquitard was observed in the Aquarina deepened well and the observation mosquito control well which was logged. It was impossible to state definitely that the observed aquitard in the area was a continuous geologic feature. Partly due to the proximity of the aquitard and the depth of the wells in relation to the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens, the conclusion was reached that effect on water quality of the Aquarina withdrawals would be insignificant. There is no fresh water recharge into the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens, but there is a continuous pressure con- nection throughout the Florida aquifer in the area. Any replacement of water discharged from the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens or the lower zones will be of saltier, less potable connate water. It is not understood how long the part of the aquifer below the aquitard (lower zone) will continue to be a significant source of fresh water due to insufficient data. The three mosquito control wells on the Aquarina site are flowing when uncapped or unplugged an estimated 432,000 gallons per day while the wells in the northern sector of the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens (below where Aquarina is located) flowed at an approximate rate of 2.6 MGD. These withdrawals by the mosquito control wells are primarily from the Sebastian Inlet fresh water lens and are the major cause of premature depletion of the lens. The testimony and the data presented at the hearing demonstrated that the Applicant has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed withdrawals by Aquarina will not significantly affect either the quality or quantity of water available to neighboring water users. This appears to be the case regardless of whether the aquitard testified to be about ten feet thick exists and whether the leakance value of less that 6% exists in the aquifer between the point of the Aquarina withdrawals and neighboring users. Data which may be generated subsequently may lead to a different conclusion, but this finding is based on the data presented to the Hearing Officer by the parties at the hearing. 4/ Aquarina has agreed to the following permit condition: (b) The applicant would have to plug all the preexisting mosquito control wells on the development site. The proper plugging of the mosquito control wells on the Aquarina site will save approximately 432.000 GPD of water from the finite Sebastian Inlet lens. This condition was agreed to independently of the contribution by Aquarina of $25,000 to the well plugging program with the District and Brevard County which has as its goal, the plugging of all mosquito control wells in the area. Without the plugging of the mosquito control wells, it is estimated that the northern reservoir of the lens would be depleted by the year 2000, and the southern reservoir by the year 2030. It was also estimated that the plugging of the mosquito control wells would prolong the life of the fresh water reservoirs by over 100 years. Furthermore, by plugging all the mosquito control wells, approximately 6,700,000 gallons per day will be saved from the entire lens area. The basin in which Aquarina is located is in an overdraft condition with more water withdrawn than is presently being recharged. However, the Aquarina project will bring about a net improvement in the situation due to the mosquito control well plugging program imposed as a condition of the permit. Under the sites current PUD zoning, a density of 12 dwelling units per acre is permitted. The current classification of the property in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan is "urbanizing." Under that classification, the Applicant could seek a rezoning of the property from PUD to single family attached residential. Such a reclassification would avoid the requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, by allowing each of the 196+- dwelling units to have its own well with a per unit consumptive use below the quantity required to activate Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Nothing would prevent any of the residential wells from tapping the fresh water lens presently used by the Petitioners in a total amount exceeding that sought in the instant application. Given the designated land use of the Aquarina site, the controlled withdrawal from one or two points within the development is a preferable alternative to the unregulated development and water use which in all probability would follow from the denial of this permit. In large measure, the District's options regarding this site and its attendant consequences have been predetermined by land use decisions made by local officials. Under these circumstances, the District has been required to choose among a set of options which do not include an option for controlled and limited growth directly tied to availability of fresh water resources envisioned by the Petitioner. The choice which the District made in this case, although obviously not ideal, is the best among the presently available alternatives.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent St. Johns River Water Management District grant the requested consumptive water use permit to the Applicant Aquarina Developments, Inc., subject to the conditions contained in the staff's TSR, as corrected and amended on March 25, 1982, which include, but are not limited to: The maximum daily withdrawal shall not exceed 9.765 million gallons per day for five years. The maximum annual withdrawal shall not exceed 171 million gallons for five years. The existing ten inch public supply wells shall be lined or cased to a depth of 450 feet below land surface to insure with- drawals from below this depth. The construction standards used to perform these well modifications shall be accomplished through all appropriate permitting regulations and conform to existing construc- tion standards as stated in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). That any subsequent Public Supply well or wells constructed for this project be cased to an equal depth. That all mosquito control wells (3) within the property boundaries of the permittee be plugged with neat cement grout from bottom to top as specified in Chapter 40C-3, F.A.C. Chloride concentrations and dissolved solids in water samples from each water supply well shall be measured monthly, and results shall be submitted within 60 days of measure- ment to the St. Johns River Water Management District. A complete water quality analysis including Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, S04, HC03, pH and Co3 shall be performed on samples collected in May of each year. The permittee shall maintain withdrawal records showing daily withdrawals of raw (pre-treatment) water for each year ending May 31. These records shall be submitted on a quarterly basis on District Form En-3. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. District representatives may visit the site to insure compliance with conditions of this permit following advance notifica- tion of the permittee of the time of visit. The water conserving techniques and methods as outlined in the July 30, 1981 letter to the District from Ed Fleis, P.E., to Thomas K. Ziegler, TSR Exhibit 10, shall be implemented and included throughout all phases of this project. Further, should the replace- ment of any fixtures or appliances be required during the life of this permit, water conserving fixtures equivalent to those originally specified shall be installed. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1982.
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
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 for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, should be issued water use permit 204387.03, to withdraw groundwater from the wells on its property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for the permitting of consumptive water use within its area of geographical jurisdiction. The Respondent, Hi Hat, is a family owned farming and ranching operation in eastern Sarasota County with water wells on its property. The Intervenor, City of Sarasota, is a municipality in Sarasota County which operates wells in the general area of those operated by Hi Hat, and which has an agreement with Hi Hat for the latter's use of treated wastewater pumped from the city's treatment plant to Hi Hat Ranch. The Petitioner, Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr., is a property owner and resident of Sarasota County whose property is located near the Hi Hat Ranch, and whose potable water is drawn from a well on his property which utilizes both the surficial and intermediate aquifers which are penetrated by the wells on Hi Hat Ranch. Hi Hat Ranch consists of 11,000 acres owned by Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, the family owned business which operates it, and an additional 3,227 acres leased from the City of Sarasota. Agricultural operations, including citrus farming, truck farming, sod farming, and grazing have been conducted on the ranch since the mid 1940's. In February, 1990, Hi Hat applied to the District for a permit to withdraw and use water from some 14 wells located on its property. It requested an annual average of 6,267,000 gallons per day, (gpd), and a peak monthly rate of 32, 668,000 gpd. Upon receipt by the District, the application was assigned a number, (204387.03), and was submitted for evaluation by the District staff for conformity with applicable District rules and policies. When the staff evaluation was completed, the District issued a staff report and proposed staff agency action in which it indicated its intention to issue a permit authorizing water to be drawn from the wells at a rate of 6,570,000 gpd, average annual, a peak monthly rate of 14,300,000 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 5,210,000 gpd. In conducting its evaluation, the District staff relied upon the District's Basis of Review For Water Use Permit Applications which contains within it the provision for use of a "water use model" in assessing the need and appropriateness of water withdrawal amounts. This model, known as the Blaney- Criddle Model considers numerous factors in the evaluation, including rainfall, soil characteristics, irrigation methods used, and proposed crop types, all in an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of the applicant's supplemental water needs. Hi Hat's application was evaluated primarily by Marie Jackson, a Hydrologist III employed by the District, and an expert in hydrology, who has, over the years, reviewed between 350 and 400 permit applications, of which approximately 90 percent have been for agriculture. She is, therefore, quite familiar with the specifics of agricultural water use needs. Her evaluation of Hi Hat's application was done in the same manner as the others she has done and utilized the same tests, measurements and factors for consideration in arriving at her conclusion. In its application, a renewal with modification sought to increase average annual quantities due to a change in crop plans, Hi Hat indicated that its criteria for water use was based on certain agricultural uses and application rates. These included: low volume under tree spray irrigation of 778 acres of citrus at an application rate of 17.2 inches/year plus one inch/year for frost and freeze protection. open ditch irrigation of 135 acres of sod at an application rate of 30 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 1,367 acres of improved pasture at an average application rate of 26.6 inches/year. overhead spray irrigation of 1,200 acres of improved pasture at an application rate of 20.3 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of spring peppers at an application rate of 30.0 inches/crop, and open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of fall peppers at an application rate of 45.2 inches/crop. Applicant also stipulated that the peak monthly quantities that it requested would be utilized for pasture, sod and citrus irrigation during the month of May. The proposed maximum quantities were for frost and freeze protection of citrus only. In January, 1989, Hi Hat entered into a contract with the City of Sarasota under which the City was obligated to deliver reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment plant to a "header" located on the ranch which thereafter distributes the water through pipes to "turnouts" located at various high points on the property. From these, the water is then discharged into a system of ridges and furrows for distribution of the water across the needed area. The reclaimed water is used to irrigate approximately 5,403 acres of ranchland. The Contract provides for minimum and maximum amounts of water to be delivered as well as for water quality standards which must be met. In periods of adequate rainfall, when irrigation is not required, any treated wastewater which is not needed is stored in a 185 million gallon holding pond on City property located adjacent to the ranch. When needed, water can be fed into the wastewater distribution system described above from the holding pond. This reclaimed water, whether from the pond or direct from the header, can also be utilized to irrigate citrus crops, but this requires a filter system which has not yet been able to operate properly. Therefore, no reclaimed water has yet to be utilized for citrus irrigation on the ranch. At an average annual flow of 6.2 million gallons per day, the pond has the capacity to hold enough treated water for almost 30 days. Not all wells on Hi Hat Ranch are active wells. Several of the wells are classified as standby wells which are intended to be used only to back up the reclaimed water delivery system and are located, normally, beside the "turnouts." In the event the reclaimed water is not available from the city, the standby wells can be utilized to provide water to the ridge and furrow system used to irrigate pasture land. The standby wells are numbers 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Well number 5, also identified as a standby well in the staff report and in the draft permit was mistakenly so identified. The draft permit contains several special conditions which impact on the drawing of water under the terms of the permit. Significant among these is Special Condition 33 which prohibits the withdrawal of water from any of the standby wells unless the reclaimed water supply from the city is interrupted. Special Condition 27 requires the installation of a flow meter on any standby well that becomes active as a result of permanent discontinuance of the reclaimed water supply. With regard to flow meters, Special Condition 22 requires flow meters on all of Hi Hat's wells. Ms. Jackson, however, indicated this was in error and has recommended that the standby wells be deleted from that Special Condition. When that is done, only those wells actively producing water on a regular basis would require the installation of flow meters. In its analysis of the application for permit, the District staff considered several factors pertinent to the impact the well would have on the water supply in the area and its effect on other users. These factors include hydrologic impacts, well condition, the history of water use at the ranch, the reliability of the reclaimed water system and its ability to provide a uniform source, and the city's water reuse policy. Addressing each individually, and starting with the hydrologic impact of the withdrawal of the requested amounts, the District considered the nature of the existing wells and how they are constructed and maintained. The District assumed, because the data regarding the construction of the existing wells was incomplete and insufficient to properly disclose the status of casing on each well, that they were shallow cased. As a result, the calculations incorporating this assumption indicate a situation that would occur in its most aggravated form. The parties agreed that Hi Hat's wells are shallow cased and probably go no deeper than 90 feet. To determine, as much as possible, the projected drawdowns in the surficial and intermediate aquifers that might be expected if Hi Hat withdrew the amounts of water proposed, the District utilized the "MODFLOW" computer model which factors in simultaneous peak withdrawals from all 14 of the wells along with a 90 day no rainfall drought condition. This, too, contributes to a worst case scenario, and the resultant figures are considered to be conservative estimates of the hydrologic impact of the water withdrawal. Notwithstanding, the application of this computer model resulted in the indication that, as to the surficial aquifer, the drawdown at Mr. Bishop's property located approximately one half mile from the ranch border, would be no more than .055 feet. Since normal fluctuations in the surficial aquifer during the course of the year can be as much as 6 feet, the projected drawdown as a result of Hi Hat's withdrawals was considered insignificant. Applying the same assumptions and utilizing the same computer model as it relates to the intermediate aquifer resulted in an indication of a drawdown of no more than 2.3 feet at Mr. Bishop's property. Since annual fluctuation in the intermediate aquifer can range from 15 to 20 feet normally, the District considers that any reduction of less than five feet in the intermediate aquifer is insignificant. The permit held by Hi hat currently allows for the withdrawal of more water than would be withdrawn under the proposed permit as conditioned and is consistent with the proposed reduction in allowable withdrawals. Considering that factor, as well as the prohibition against withdrawals from standby wells as long as reclaimed water is available, the actual impact of the water withdrawals consistent with the proposed permit would be substantially less than the computed prediction which includes production from all wells. Drawdown contours are defined across the entire effected area. One of the levels is a 4 foot contour, and when a computer simulation indicates that the 4 foot contour includes a withdrawal previously or otherwise permitted, the District will generally conduct a cumulative impact analysis. In this case, however, since there was only one golf course well within the area circumscribed by the 4 foot contour line, and since this withdrawal was too small to have effected an evaluation, it was not done. The condition of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch has some bearing on whether or not the application for additional withdrawal of water should be granted. These wells are almost 30 years old, having been drilled in the 1960's. As a result, there is little information available regarding their construction detail. This is not necessarily unusual for agricultural wells, and there is evidence that there are many similar wells in use within the District. The reason for this is that at the time the wells were drilled, information regarding their depth, casing and other matters were not required to be kept or reported. However, there is no indication the wells are in any way violative of well construction criteria and their use has been authorized continuously since 1977. When he prepared Hi Hat's application, Mr. Turner included much the same information regarding the wells as pertains as to depth and diameter which he had previously submitted in earlier applications and which had been accepted. In each case, casing depths had been reported as unknown. Notwithstanding the information contained in some old well logs relative to only a few of Hi Hat's wells, this information is in no way definitive and it is difficult to describe anything specific with the majority of these wells. Nonetheless, as already found, it is stipulated that most are approximately 90 feet deep. It is reasonable to assume that the existing wells, however, are cased only to a shallow depth, and that in many cases, the existing casings have corroded away, either totally or in part. This can cause an intermixing of water from the separate aquifers, but whether this is in fact happening depends upon factors specific to that particular well. Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that as a result of the condition of Hi Hat's wells, any degradation is occurring in the more potable, surficial aquifer as a result of intermixing with water from the intermediate aquifer on or around the Hi Hat Ranch. In Ms. Jackson's opinion, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict it, the amount of drawdown which would occur as a result of maximum pumping at Hi Hat Ranch would not be sufficient to cause poorer quality water from the Floridan aquifer to percolate upward (upcone) into the better quality water of the two upper aquifers even during drought conditions. By the same token, there is no evidence that drawdown would encourage or permit salt water intrusion. Petitioner attempted to show by the records kept on the various Hi Hat wells that many of them have been abandoned and are no longer operative and should not be allowed to fall within the parameters of this permit. He testified clearly that over the years, the level of water in his potable water well has lowered and presumed that this was the result of increased water usage by other entities which draw from the aquifer into which his well is sunk. Water level, however, depends upon numerous factors, of which usage is only one. Others include recharging of the aquifer and the amount of rainfall and other recharge sources not only in the immediate area but across the large area which feeds the aquifer. Mr. Bishop did not present any evidence showing a causal connection between the lowering of the water in his well, or the degradation in water quality he claims to have experienced, and either the drawdown caused by Hi Hat's operation or by aquifer intermixing. He indicated, and it is not disputed, that within the past year, he has had to take measures to improve the water quality in his potable well, but, again, he has not presented any evidence to show this was caused by Hi Hat's ground water withdrawals. In its long range planning, the District intends to implement a program to rehabilitate old wells, and when that program is implemented, almost every agricultural well within the District may require recasing or redrilling. This program will not be implemented for several years, however. In an effort, however, to insure that all reasonable precautions are taken to see that approval of any petition for withdrawal does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water needs of the surrounding community, in its analysis of this application, and in all cases, the District makes certain assumptions when adequate empirical data is not available. In this case, pertaining to the unavailability of information regarding Hi Hat's wells, the District assumed that all wells were shallow cased, and this placed the application in the worst possible light. Shallow cased wells allow more upconing and aquifer intermixing. Nonetheless, the amount of water permitted to Hi Hat, even if not used, could impact on Mr. Bishop and other adjoining owner's use of additional water as a result of a possible change to their permitted quantities. However, to compensate for this, the District has also included a special condition, (#26), which requires Hi Hat to log all 14 of its wells within the term of the permit, (7 years), which will require at least 2 wells be done each year. The cost of that action will be between $800 and $2500 per well. Another condition, (#31), requires Hi Hat to look into any complaint from adjacent property owners regarding adverse impacts due to water withdrawal, to report the results of its inquiry to the District, and to mitigate, as much as possible, all adverse impacts due to its withdrawal. Mr. Bishop claimed, and introduced evidence purporting to demonstrate, that many of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch, which are covered by the permit applied for here, are no longer in use and have been abandoned. In response, Mr. Turner, who has been actively engaged in the ranch's operations for at least the past four years, indicates from his personal knowledge, that all 14 wells included in the permit applied for have been operated within the past two years, and all are capable of producing water. It is so found. Not all wells, however, have been operated at all times. Crop rotation and a varying need for groundwater has resulted in some wells not being used at some times. This is, of course, commonplace in agriculture and to be expected as a result of crop planning programs. Admittedly, an accurate figure for the amount of water which has been withdrawn from the 14 wells cannot be established because these wells do not have, and were not required to have, flow meters. Two of the wells were fitted with hour meters in January, 1989, but because the capacity of the pumps on those wells is variable, a precise estimate of volume pumped cannot be determined. The meters measured only the number of hours the pumps were in operation and not the amount of water passed through the pumps. Evidence was presented, however, to show that wells have been utilized at the ranch since the 1960's, and in 1977, some 14 years ago, following District implementation of a consumptive water use permit program, the ranch first applied for water withdrawal permits. These permits have been renewed as required and all water usage since the implementation of the program has been permitted. Turning to the reclaimed water supply, the delivery system, incorporating a program to pump reclaimed water from the treatment plant all the way back out to the ranch site, is subject to material failure and operator error, and either one can occur at any number of places along the system route. Each could result in interruption of the delivery of the reclaimed water to the ranch. The system is far more complex than would be the use of on-site wells for delivery of ground water. One two week shutdown in the system was occasioned by a major pipe failure as a result of pressure building up in the pipes. Were it not for the fact that a contractor was already at the ranch with replacement parts on hand to effect expeditious repair of the system, the shutdown could have lasted considerably longer than it did. This is not the only interruption, however. Several main line leaks and valve problems have caused the system to be shut down on several occasions for short periods of time. The filter system required for the water destined for the citrus area is problematical, and so far this area of the ranch has not received any reclaimed water in the 10 months the system has been in operation. Mr. Bishop argues that the wet weather holding pond is a solution to the reliability problems with the pipe line, but the pond has had problems of its own. Sand in the water, which comes from the holding pond, has been the primary difficulty in the filter system for the citrus area, and algae growth in that pond has the potential to create other filter problems. Delivery of the water from the pond is not accomplished by a gravity system, but instead, requires the use of pumps powered by an electric motor. In the event of a power failure, this source would be unavailable. Discounting all of the above, however, and assuming, arguendo, that all systems were in top operating condition, the fact remains that the delivery system from the pond to the distribution system is not adequate to supply the amount of water that would be necessary to have an effective freeze protection program. In any case, the reclaimed water supply is not the panacea for all water shortage problems experienced at Hi Hat Ranch. In the first place, the quality of the reclaimed water is generally lower than that of the groundwater which would come from wells on the ranch. Also, the City's treatment process does not remove from the water all the pollutants that are of concern to the farm operators. For one thing, total dissolved solids in the reclaimed water are considerably higher than in the ground water, and high dissolved solid levels can be harmful to citrus crops. In fact, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommends that citrus irrigation water not exceed total dissolved solid ranges of from 1000 to 1500 milligrams per liter, (mpl). Testing done on the reclaimed water delivered to Hi Hat Ranch showed it averaged between 1200 and 1500 mpl. Though within recommended parameters, it was toward the high end. Further, reclaimed water is not totally interchangeable with ground water for all agricultural purposes. It cannot, by law, be applied to certain types of ground crops such as melons, nor can it be used for overhead citrus irrigation. There is also a restriction on the use of reclaimed water for pastures on which dairy cattle will be grazed. This all results in a restriction on the options available to the farmer who chooses to use reclaimed water in his irrigation plan. As a result, many farmers try not to use reclaimed water if they have access to adequate amounts of groundwater from on- site wells. Notwithstanding all the above, the parties agree that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposed is in the public interest. The District encourages it but nonetheless concedes that even with the availability of reclaimed water, a farmer should have access to wells on his property, in a standby capacity, as an alternative source of water to support his farming activities. Not only that, the agreement between the City and Hi Hat provides for Hi Hat to maintain its water use permit even while receiving reclaimed water from the City. Hi Hat is not the only farm operation with whom the City has negotiated in a effort to expand its wastewater distribution program. It has found in those negotiations, that most farm producers are not willing to rely totally on reclaimed water for all their irrigation needs, and it has concluded that were it mandatory that a farmer give up his on-site ground water withdrawals in order to utilize reclaimed water for a part of his needs, most would be reluctant to use it at all. This would seriously interfere with the City's ability to dispose of its surplus reclaimed water consistent with its policy. Even though Hi Hat's property lies within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Cautionary Area, the rule pertaining thereto is inapplicable to Hi Hat because Hi Hat filed its application for permit, which was deemed complete, prior to the adoption of the rule. Nonetheless, water use officials agree that the proposed permit is consistent with the rule emphasis on the use and reuse of reclaimed water, and the District does not object to backup wells being permitted as supportive of the District's desire to keep ground water within the ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Hi Hat Cattle and Grove be issued water use permit No. 204387.03, within the limits of the authorized quantities as indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein; except that the permit be amended to show well No. 5 as a non-standby well, and to delete standby wells from the terms and requirements of Special Condition 22. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. She testified that Condition 28 of the permit provides this. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 36. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence except that the method permitted was the method being used. - 40. Accepted. Ms. Jackson indicated she "assumed" some wells were drilled into the Florida aquifer. Rejected. Accepted as qualified by the comment, "depending on the respective potentiometric heads." - 47. Accepted. Accepted but incomplete. This is because they did not feel it was necessary under the circumstances. - 51. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Redundant. - 61. Accepted. - 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. More a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein. & 71. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 74. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second portion rejected since cited case involves active wells versus standby, as here. The comparison made is accepted. The conclusion drawn as to validity is rejected. & 79. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, & 45. Accepted. 46. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Bram D.E. Canter, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara B. Levin, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should be subject to civil penalties and required to submit a Compliance Plan for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and Order filed on January 8, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this enforcement action, Petitioner, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to assess civil penalties against, and require a compliance plan from, Respondents, Balm Associates, Inc. (Balm) and Goodson Farms, Inc. (Goodson), on the grounds that from March 1999 through July 2001 they made water withdrawals from certain property in Hillsborough County, Florida, without a water use permit, and after a permit was obtained in August 2001, they continued to exceed the annual average daily withdrawals authorized under the permit through the month of November 2001, or just prior to the preparation and issuance of the Administrative Complaint and Order (Complaint).1 While not denying that excessive pumpages may have occurred, and that a permit was not obtained until August 2001, Balm points out that it is the owner-lessor of the property and not the consumptive user of the water, and contends that the District has no authority to enforce its rules against, and recover civil penalties from, the non-user of the water. In its request for a hearing, Goodson did not specifically dispute the allegation that it consumed water without a permit, or exceeded the withdrawal limits under the new permit, but contended instead that the limits were unrealistic and should be modified. At the final hearing, however, Goodson disputed the accuracy of the water consumption figures used in the Complaint. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Balm is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is 2101 Huntington Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. It owns approximately 220 acres of land in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 21 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, which is the site of the alleged wrongdoing. Goodson is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 246, Balm, Florida 33503. Goodson is in the farming business and operates a total of 13 farms, including the farm at issue in this proceeding. Permit Requirements Under Rule 40D-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit is required whenever total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); annual average withdrawal from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd; or withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at the surface. Rule 40D-2.351(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a permittee must notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted water withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located. The same rule also provides that where a permit has been issued to a party whose ownership or legal control of the permitted water withdrawal facilities subsequently ends, the party who assumes control over the facilities may apply to transfer the permit to himself or herself up to the renewal date of the transferor's permit. Finally, Rule 40D-2.351(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that until a permit is transferred or a new permit is obtained, the party subsequently controlling the permitted water withdrawal facilities will be in violation of District rules for making withdrawals without the required permit. History of Permits on the Property On September 29, 1989, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 207135.001 (the .001 permit) to James Brown (Brown) and B & T Growers Partnership (B & T) for water withdrawals from one well for agricultural purposes on Balm's property. The .001 permit authorized annual average withdrawals of 102,000 gpd of groundwater for agricultural irrigation. On August 29, 1990, the District adopted new rules applicable to District permits within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA). The .001 permit was within the ETBWUCA, and Brown and B & T were provided with a Notice of Permit Modification and new Permit Conditions. The new conditions became effective November 15, 1990. New Condition No. 5 provided that By July 31, 1995, all permitted withdrawal points shall be equipped with totalizing flow meters or other measuring devices as approved in writing by the Director, Resource Regulation Department. Such devices shall have and maintain accuracy within five percent of the actual flow installed. On December 14, 1992, the District approved the transfer of the .001 permit from Brown and B & T to B. Kenda Produce. The Unpermitted Water Withdrawals On June 30, 1997, Goodson entered into a two-year agricultural lease with Balm to use a portion of the property, including acreage previously used by B. Kendra Produce. At the time the lease was entered into, neither Respondent applied to the District to have the .001 permit transferred from B. Kendra Produce. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that after the first lease expired, the parties continued to execute new lease agreements at least through the time of the hearing. The portion of the property which Goodson leased and farmed is referred to as the "Sweat Loop Farm" and consists of approximately 100 acres. There is one well with an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface located on the Sweat Loop Farm. The well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), which is over 1,000,000 gpd. Thus, withdrawals from the well required a water use permit. As noted earlier, Goodson operates a total of 13 farms on approximately 2,500 acres of land. There are approximately 15 wells on all 13 farms, including the Sweat Loop Farm. Michael E. Hare, an irrigation supervisor who is responsible for the irrigation of all 13 of Goodson's farms, installed a total of approximately 8 meters on the farms, including the meter on the Sweat Loop Farm. A totalizing flow meter, which was made by MiCrometer, was installed at the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Mr. Hare acknowledged that he was familiar with MiCrometer meters and would be aware if the MiCrometer flow meter on the Sweat Loop Farm was not functioning properly. Whenever metering devices on the various Goodson farms have malfunctioned in the past, Mr. Hare has taken the malfunctioning meter to a metering company to be fixed. Goodson began irrigating the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Since that time, Goodson has been the sole water user of the well on the farm. In March 1999, Goodson began submitting to the District monthly pumpage reports for the groundwater withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm. Although some unmeasured withdrawals presumably occurred prior to March 1999, the Complaint does not identify these as being a violation. Mr. Hare and other supervisors are responsible for collecting the meter readings which go on the monthly pumpage reports and providing them to the District. The information on the reports includes the permit number; the last month's meter reading; the current month's meter reading; the total gallons of water pumped for the current month; the meter total; and the meter factor. To determine the average daily withdrawal on the Sweat Loop Farm, the District relied upon the calculations provided by Goodson as to the total gallons of water pumped for the month and divided this number by 30 days. From March 1999 through July 2001, these quantities were as follows: MONTH/YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE March 1999 April 1999 531,487 No data available May 1999 364,930 June 1999 0 July 1999 0 August 1999 57,410 September 1999 49,563 October 1999 222,667 November 1999 250,667 December 1999 755,003 January 2000 689,433 February 2000 695,073 March 2000 544,427 April 2000 305,153 May 2000 597,720 June 2000 0 July 2000 62,120 August 2000 86,370 September 2000 123,233 October 2000 602,020 November 2000 409,550 December 2000 145,823 January 2001 957,690 February 2001 890,213 March 2001 391,280 April 2001 467,640 May 2001 617,177 June 2001 0 July 2001 0 Under Rule 40D-2.041(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit was required for Goodson's withdrawals since the well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gpm, which is greater than 1,000,000 gpd; the annual average withdrawals exceeded 100,000 gpd; and the well has an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface. The withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm were not authorized by the .001 permit since neither Goodson or Balm was a permittee under the permit. Even if Goodson could rely on the permit, which it cannot, pumpage data provided by Goodson reflects that the water withdrawals (except for nine months) were in excess of that authorized by the permit. On June 16, 2000, the District mailed a Notice of Non-Compliance for excessive water withdrawals to Goodson. The Notice indicated that if the pumpage values submitted by Goodson were incorrect, Goodson was to explain the error and provide corrected quantities. On June 26, 2000, the District received a written response to the Notice of Non-Compliance from the superintendent of the Sweat Loop Farm who indicated that the pumpage values were correct, and that the excess usage was due to a "serious drought condition" which had caused a "significant financial hardship on [the] farm." The response also indicated that Goodson would contact Mr. Haftel, owner of Balm, to request that he "revise the water use permit for spring crops." On November 22, 2000, the District mailed Goodson a Notice of Violation indicating that the quantities authorized by the .001 permit were still being exceeded and that the District might seek monetary penalties if Goodson failed to come into compliance within 30 days. Despite the foregoing Notice, Goodson continued to make withdrawals without a permit and in excess of the quantities formerly authorized under the .001 permit until August 2001 when a new permit was finally obtained. Issuance of a New Water Use Permit On January 2, 2001, the District received an application for a General Water Use Permit seeking to modify the .001 permit to increase the withdrawal quantities and to transfer the permit from B. Kendra Produce to Balm. "Seymour Haftel/ Balm Associates, Inc." was listed as the applicant, and "Donn Goodson" from " Goodson Farms" was listed as the contact or consultant. Mr. Haftel signed the application on behalf of Balm. Goodson assisted Balm in securing the permit for the Sweat Loop Farm because Goodson wanted more water for irrigation purposes. Section 2.1 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application, adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40D-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]pplications for leased property, except property leased from the District, must be either a joint application in the name of the lessee and the property owner(s) or be only in the name of the property owner(s)." In a Request for Additional Information mailed to Balm on January 29, 2001, the District asked whether Goodson should be listed as co-applicant on the application. On April 27, 2001, Balm submitted a response which indicated that Goodson should not be listed as co-applicant. On August 6, 2001, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 200007135.002 (the .002 permit) to Seymour Haftel/Balm Associates, Inc. authorizing an increase in the annual average withdrawals to 224,300 gpd. The permit had an expiration date of September 29, 2009. The permit contained a number of special conditions, none of which were challenged by Balm. Unauthorized Withdrawals Under the .002 Permit Special Condition No. 2 of the .002 permit requires in part that the permittee: continue to maintain and operate the existing non-resettable, totalizing flow meter(s), or other flow measuring device(s) as approved by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation, for District ID No(s), Permittee ID No(s)[,] G-1. Such device(s) shall maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total withdrawal and meter readings from each metered withdrawal shall be recorded on a monthly basis and reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department, (using District forms) on or before the tenth day of the following month. In the event a permittee chooses not to use a totalizing flow meter, as required by Special Condition No. 2, the District will review information provided by the measuring device's manufacturer to determine if the measuring device would maintain a five percent accuracy as required by the Condition. The meters have to be monitored and calibrated periodically for accuracy. It is the permittee's responsibility to comply with the conditions of the permit, including Special Condition No. 2, which requires the submittal of accurate pumpage reports. Goodson submitted the meter readings on behalf of Balm beginning in September 2001, which covered the withdrawals for the month of August 2001. The District relied on the meter readings submitted by Goodson to determine the annual average daily pumpage calculation for the .002 permit. The calculation is a running 12-month average, whereby each month the annual average daily quantity is recalculated based on the previous 12-month pumpage. The running annual average daily pumpage and percentage of pumpage which exceeded the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002 are as follows: MONTH/YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE PERCENTAGE OVERPUMPED August 2001 378,462 69 percent September 2001 382,622 71 percent October 2001 376,687 68 percent November 2001 383,008 71 percent December 2001 379,212 69 percent January 2002 327,343 46 percent February 2002 321,530 43 percent March 2002 350,701 56 percent April 2002 356,013 59 percent May 2002 338,131 51 percent As the foregoing data reflects, the withdrawals from the Sweat Loop Farm were in excess of that authorized by the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002.
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 determining that Respondents are guilty of the charges in its Administrative Complaint and Order except as concluded in paragraph 48 above and endnote 2 below; that Respondents be required to submit an acceptable written plan (Compliance Plan) to the District for its consideration and approval within fourteen days after entry of the final order; that the Compliance Plan describe how Respondents shall achieve full compliance with the .002 permit; that the Compliance Plan include reductions in withdrawals, water conservation measures, and development and utilization of alternative resources; that the Compliance Plan establish deadlines for implementation and completion of corrective actions; that full compliance be achieved within 120 days after entry of the final order; and that any failure of Respondents to comply with any provision of the Compliance Plan shall constitute a violation of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2002, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issues presented for decision in this case are: whether Martin County should be granted the re-issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W for the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant and associated wells; and (2) whether Martin County should be granted Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B for the construction of Well No. 10 of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant, pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James W. Slusher, Jr., and his wife, Diane L. Slusher, own a residential lot located in unincorporated Martin County at 2376 SW Ranch Trail, Stuart, Florida 34997. On the lot is a single family home. The size of the residential lot is approximately 2.25 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Slusher purchased the subject residential lot and home in September of 1994 from Mrs. Stella Kassinger. Mrs. Kassinger and her late husband (the “original owners”) had the home built on the residential lot in approximately 1980. When the original owners built the home, they had a hole or “pit” dug in the rear portion of the lot. From aerial photographs taken at the time (1979-1980), and based upon the common practice in the area, it appears that the material from the “pit” was spread on-site to provide additional elevation for, and to minimize the potential for flooding of, the home and driveway that were constructed on the lot. Thus, the original “design function” of the “pit” was to provide fill for construction. The original owners thereafter allowed the “pit” to accumulate water and stocked it with fish so that Mr. Kassinger could use it recreationally as a fishing pond. The “design function” of the original “pit” was thus changed so that it would serve as a recreational amenity on the property. During the subsequent 14 years that the original owners lived in the home, they did nothing further to alter or improve the fishing pond. Over the years, the area immediately around the fishing pond became heavily vegetated and was used from time to time by various wild birds and animals. The fishing pond was used by the original owners for fishing and for observing the wildlife it attracted. After purchasing the home, Mr. Slusher also stocked the fishing pond with various fish over the years so that he and his family could continue to use it recreationally. The fishing pond continued to be used by the Slushers for fishing, for observing wildlife, and as a swimming area for their dogs. Currently, the overall dimensions of the fishing pond are approximately 90 feet wide, by 122 feet long, by 10 feet deep at its deepest part, when filled to the level that was natural prior to the operation of Water Well No. 10. Potable water for the Slusher home is obtained from a well drilled on the property, not from the public water system of the County. The Slusher well is located approximately 33 feet from the home. It is attached by PVC pipe to a pump located next to the home. The original owners caused the well to be drilled. The record in this case does not contain any persuasive evidence regarding the details of the Slusher residential water well. Specifically absent are such details as the depth to which the well was originally drilled, the material from which the well tube was made (i.e., cast iron or PVC), and the current physical condition of the sub-surface portions of the well. Mr. Slusher has not done anything to repair or replace the well since he and his wife purchased the home. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed a petition with the SFWMD challenging the issuance of Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B, and the "use of the well." On November 3, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed an amended petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W and Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B. Martin County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, established in 1925 pursuant to Section 7.43, Florida Statutes, and Section 1, Chapter 10180, Laws of Florida. SFWMD is an independent state agency, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. SFWMD originally issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on April 15, 1993. The “water use permit” was for wells and associated equipment at the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant (“Tropical Farms WTP”). SFWMD re-issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on March 14, 1996. The re-issued “water use permit” allowed additional wells to be drilled and additional draws of water by the County at the Tropical Farms WTP. One of the additional wells included in the re-issued water use permit was “Well No. 10.” SFWMD issued Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B to the County on March 28, 1996, allowing the construction of Well No. 10 at the Tropical Farms WTP. In accordance with the restrictions imposed by the water well construction permit, the County drilled Well No. 10 on a site located at least 100 feet in distance from the fishing pond on the Slushers’ property. The physical location of Well No. 10 is essentially “adjacent to” the Slusher property. County Well No. 10 is approximately 120 feet deep and draws water from the surficial aquifer. It commenced operation in December of 1996. It is uncontested that the operation of the well field, especially County Well No. 10, has caused drawdowns of the pond level and of the groundwater in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The MODFLOW model used by the County in support of its application indicates a maximum drawdown of 7.4 feet. The persuasive expert opinion evidence in this case indicates that maximum draw downs of 7 or 8 feet would be expected in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The County has acknowledged that the operation of Well No. 10 has had a significant effect on the drawdown of the water table in the area of the pond. County Well No. 10 appears to have been constructed in a manner consistent with the applicable rules. The well was properly drilled and grouted, the correct materials were used, and the well was constructed in a manner that did not result in harm to the water resources. The water use permit was issued prior to the well construction permit, as is appropriate. Although permitted originally in 1993 and again in 1996, the Tropical Farms WTP did not begin regular operations until June of 1997. It is now part of a consolidated system which includes four other water treatment plants, all operated by the County for the purpose of obtaining and providing potable water to the public county-wide. In support of its applications for the issuance and re-issuance of the water use permit, the County provided SFWMD with so-called “MODFLOW calculations” done by a professional engineering firm retained by the County. MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey and is considered the standard for assessment of ground water resource impacts. The results of the three-dimensional MODFLOW modeling showed that the drawdown effect on the water table of the proposed wells for the Tropical Farms WTP would be unlikely to cause any adverse effect on typical wells used by homeowners, even if the latter were located within the same small “square” as one of the County’s wells. Prior to the commencement of the operation of Well No. 10 by the County, the water level in the fishing pond on the Slusher property would vary only a few inches up or down during the course of a typical year. After the County began to operate County Well No. 10, Mr. Slusher observed and videotaped much greater variations in the water level in the fishing pond on his property. After County Well No. 10 began to operate, the pond water level dropped to the extent that it would become virtually empty of water from time to time. At other times, however, the fishing pond would refill with water, such as in September of 1999, and in August of 2001. When the water in Mr. Slusher's pond gets very low, it has an adverse impact on the fish in the pond; the fish die because they have insufficient water. Mr. Slusher has not done anything over the years since the operation of County Well No. 10 began to attempt to prevent the variations in the water level of the fishing pond, or to mitigate the occurrence of such variations. The County (together with the rest of southern Florida) has experienced several periods of severe drought over the past few years. Yet other “ponds” on other properties in the same neighborhood as the Slusher property have not experienced the significant variance in water level that has occurred in the fishing pond on the Slusher property since the County began drawing water from Well No. 10. The County does not operate Well No. 10 continuously. Rather, it has attempted to reduce its use of the well. SFWMD has never issued any notice to the County that any mitigation was required on the Slusher property pursuant to the limiting conditions of the water use permit. The County does not dispute that its operation of Well No. 10 has contributed to a drawdown in the level of the water table in the surrounding area, nor that such a drawdown has contributed to the variance in the water level in the pond on the Slusher property. Indeed, the drawdown of the water table generally was fully anticipated and predicted in the materials submitted by the County to SFWMD. The use of County Well No. 10 to draw water from the surficial aquifer is not the only factor contributing to the variances in the water level of the fishing pond on the Slusher property. Evaporation and natural variances in the level of the water table also contribute to changes in the water level of the fishing pond. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay that is mined for a variety of uses, including the “lining” or “waterproofing” of reservoirs, lagoons, ponds, ditches, and other man-made bodies of water in order to seal them and to prevent or minimize seepage or percolation of the water into the ground. Even repeated wetting and drying of the clay does not reduce its effectiveness. Bentonite is widely used and has not been found to have any harmful or toxic effects on either human beings or wildlife. In some applications, bentonite clay is a superior lining material when compared to a man-made liner, such as a plastic or polymer sheet. In a small scale application where the volume of water in a lined pond is relatively low, a man- made liner could be forced away (“balloon up”) from the bottom of the pond by the pressure of a rising natural water table. Lining the pond on the Slusher property with Bentonite (or some similar clay) would create a virtually impervious layer that would separate the water in the pond on the Slusher property from the surrounding water table. With such a lining in place, County Well No. 10 would have no significant effect on the water level of the pond. The water level in the pond on the Slusher property could also be stabilized at or near its normal level prior to the operation of County Well No. 10 by installation of a water supply that would add water to the pond whenever the pond dropped below a specified level. Mr. Slusher first complained to the County about the effect of the County’s operation of Well No. 10 in 1997, when he spoke with Jim Mercurio, a County water utilities employee. Mr. Slusher also complained at about the same time to SFWMD, which resulted in a “field investigation” in September 1997. At that time, Mr. Slusher complained about the lowering of the water level in the pond on his property, but specifically denied any adverse effect on the water from his residential water well. Mr. Slusher began to complain about the water quality and water pressure in his residential water well sometime in 2000. The water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well now has an unpleasant odor, taste, and color, and the water causes rust stains. The water pressure of the water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well is less than it was before the construction of County Well No. 10. The rust stains, odor, taste, and color are all due to iron oxidation of the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. The County regularly experiences similar problems with iron oxidation in the water that it draws from its own wells in the same area as the Slusher property, which the County must treat at the Tropical Farms WTP. The problem of iron oxidation (and accompanying odor and taste deficiencies) in the water is thus not unique to the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. Iron oxidation in well water is not harmful to human beings. The evidence in this case does not include any evidence of any testing of the water quality of the water coming from the Slusher residential well. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence as to the current condition of the sub- surface portions of the Slusher residential well. Further, the evidence regarding the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or the water pressure of the Slusher residential water well is both anecdotal and speculative, and is not a persuasive basis for determining the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or water pressure of the subject residential well. Specifically, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the water quality and water pressure deterioration complained of by Mr. Slusher are a result of the operation of County Well No. 10. Such deterioration could be caused by other circumstances or conditions, including the uninspected sub-surface condition of Slusher's residential water well. The water quality and water pressure problems currently experienced by Mr. Slusher could be minimized or eliminated by connecting his residence to the residential water supply system operated by the County. A branch of the County's public water system already exists in Mr. Slusher's neighborhood within a few hundred feet of his property. The application and information provided to SFWMD by the County were determined by SFWMD to provide “reasonable assurances” that existing legal users would not be adversely affected by the proposed wells or water treatment facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B and re- issuing Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to Martin County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard K. Heims, Esquire Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. 618 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 5 Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00254 seeks a consumptive use water permit for 1.08 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.16 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal from one well. This is a new use. The purpose of the consumptive use is a semi-enclosed irrigation system for the irrigation of tomatoes in south Hillsborough County. The water is to be taken from the Floridan Aquifer with some discharge off site. According to Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist for the district, there is some possibility that salt water intrusion may occur, but the district has never documented it in the subject area. The consumptive use will exceed the water crop as defined by the district because 25 percent of the water used will run off site and thus be lost. Except as otherwise stated above, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2),(3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: By January 1, 1978, applicant shall reduce runoff to 8.6 percent of the amount pumped, which reduction will bring the amount pumped within the water crop as defined by the district. That the applicant analyze the quality of the water at the beginning and end of each production season and that these analyses be submitted to the district. That the district be allowed to install flowmeters on any discharge canal and on the pump with proper notification of applicant and to enter on property to read the meters.
Recommendation Noting that, with the conditions requested by the Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff, issuance of the sought for permit appears consistent with the public interest, it is RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be issued pursuant to Application No. 75-00254 with the conditions set forth in paragraph 4. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Terry Elsberry Staff Attorney Elsberry Brothers, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Route 2, Box 70 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
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 parties have raised myriad issues hare. Petitioner has alleged being capriciously and arbitrarily denied its permit because similar treatment plants have been licensed nearby. The parties disagree over whether local Lake County Pollution Control Board rules are applicable to Petitioner's plant. If the rules are applicable, they disagree over their interpretation. The parties further disagree over whether Petitioner has pending an application for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. It is this last issue which is discussed below because it is dispositive of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a waste water treatment plant in Lake County, Florida which serves four motels at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 19 immediately to the south of Interchange 27 on the Florida Turnpike. On October 27, 1972, DER issued a construction permit to Petitioner to construct the plant at a design capacity of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd). The treated effluent was proposed to be discharged via a spray irrigation system to the ground water on Petitioner's site. The plant has never operated at capacity. Its normal volume has ranged from between a low of 40,000 gpd to a peak of 140,000 gpd. Petitioner's plant is situated on a 12.5 acre site over a clay hard pan. The hard pan which is immediately below the ground surface prevents adequate percolation of the plant's effluent down to the underlying ground water. During periods of heavy rain the effluent from the plant has breached a retaining dike and flowed directly into a marsh area known as the Little Everglades to the north. Petitioner has submitted four permit applications to the Department. The first, submitted in September of 1972 was for the construction permit already mentioned. The next applications dated October 22, 1973, was for an operation permit. The application indicated that there would be no discharge to surface waters but there would be a discharge to ground waters. The application also indicated that the availability of space for the expansion of the plant was limited to the site at that time. Petitioner later purchased additional land not reflected in this application. The operation permit was never granted by the Respondent. As stated by Mr. Potter, President of Lake County Utilities, Inc., "In the fall of 1973, I made an application as engineer for the utility company to the Florida DPC [Department of Pollution Control] and to Lake County for an operation permit. That permit was denied by the Department on the ground that we had not satisfied Lake County as to the total containment of our effluent." Subsequently on August 30, 1976, Petitioner submitted a construction permit application to DER for permission to add a 1.32 acre oxidation-polishing pond, to regrade and regrass the existing spray irrigation field, to construct a 0.40 acre denitrification pond and to add a nutrient uptake. No increase in the design capacity was proposed. On that application Petitioner indicated that there would be a discharge to the surface waters of the state. In answer to that part of the application which asked for proposed drainage path of the effluent Petitioner stated, "From treatment plant to 'on-site' ponds to 'on-site' grassy pond and marsh would overflow to ajacent Florida DOT [Department of Transportation] borrow pit: thence via developed drainage waste to the 'Little Everglades' swamp: then, via developed canal and ditches and through natural ponds and marshes to 'Little Lake Harris' and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean." This permit was denied by DER because the Lake County Pollution Control Board did not approve the plan. Finally on September 29, 1978, Petitioner applied for another construction permit. Thee construction would include: Construction of storm water control structures and culverts: Regrading of water and sewer plant sites; Construction of percolation pond "A" and enclosing dikes; and Construction of percolation pond "B" and enclosing dikes. This application was made in response to advice from DER that Petitioner's plant should be in a no discharge condition in order to comply with Lake County Pollution Control rules. On November 2, 1979, the Department issued a Letter of Intent to deny the last permit application because the application was deemed to be incomplete and because the further data which DER requested was not provided. In response to DER's intent to deny the construction permit Petitioner on November 20, 1979, filed its Petition for an Administrative Hearing. Petitioner does not now intend to construct the proposed facilities for which it requested the construction permit in September of 1978. The following colloquy is from the final hearing. Mr. Stephens Have you-- Can you describe briefly the nature of the changes proposed in your 1978 construction permit application? Mr. Potter 1978 construction permit application on nominally the five acre parcel to create a diked pond or lake. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter Solely that. The part on the nominally two and a half acre parcel, give or take, was to create a deep percolation pond in which I proposed digging through the clay to the sand and shell below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter So that waters that entered that pond, A, because of its depth, would denitrify and release nitrogen contents to the atmosphere; and, the water would, because of its hydraulic head in relation to the soil below, would push its way into the soils below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter But in the event I could not dispose of the water through that form of percolation, it would overflow into the five acre diked area. And thereby I hoped to satisfy Lake County and the D.E.R. and solve this lingering festering problem. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. You are the Petitioner in this case. Is it your desire or intention to complete those. . .that construction? Mr. Potter Now that I have been made aware of the law, the law of Chapter four oh three, the rules of Florida D.E.R. and become clear as to the ordinances adopted by the County Commission and the Lake Pollution Board of Lake County as to Class 3-B waters, I have no intention of squandering my money, and, in effect, the money of my customers, in such a wasteful pursuit. Mr. Stephens So you're saying here under oath you don't intend to perform that work even if granted a permit? Mr. Potter Not shy of a court order. As the result of Mr. Potter's testimony on behalf of the Petitioner at the final hearing, it is found that Petitioner has withdrawn its September 1978 application for a construction permit. There is not now pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation a valid permit application for the Petitioner to operate its waste water treatment plan. On May 9, 1980 Lake County Utilities, Inc. served Petitioner's Fourth Interrogatories to Respondent which asked by Interrogatory 10: Please state when and by whom the Department of Environmental Regulation has caused field studies to be made and samples to be taken out of the waters of Lake County (and specifically the geographical vicinity of U.S. 27 - S.R. 19 - Fla. Turnpike) periodically and in a logical geographic manner so as to determine the levels of water quality of the waters as such studies and sampling is within the powers and duty of the Department as mandated by the Florida Legislature in Chapter 403 of the Laws of Florida. (emphasis in original) The Department responded: 10. The Department conducts sampling in the waters of Lake County in conjunction with individual permit applications and not on a systematic basis throughout the County. Respondent objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant to this proceeding in that the subject permit was not denied on the basis of anticipated water quality violations, but rather, as a result of the pollution control ordinances of Lake County, Florida, which prohibit any discharge to surface waters from the subject facility, and which the Department is required to enforce pursuant to Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it Is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new application by Petitioner for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of May, 1981.
