The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. owns and operates a sewage treatment plant at 3015 Southwest 54th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It presently services the needs of a population of about 2500 primarily located in three trailer parks, certain warehouses, a 153 room hotel, and several other business establishments. The plant was constructed and operated by a lessee of Petitioner's owners, but, in July 1979, Petitioner became the owner and operator of the facility. At that time, it was determined necessary to secure new operators and upgrade the plant equipment and method of process in order to properly service the existing and anticipated future number of customers in the area covered by a Public Service Commission franchise. Although the plant had been operating at a permitted capacity of 0.25 million gallons per day (MGD), Petitioner planned to expand the capacity to 0.60 MGD by modifying the aeration tank, and adding tertiary sand filters and equipment for clarification. Upon assuming control of the plant, Petitioner found that the 0.25 MGD permitted capacity had been exceeded by approximately 120,000 gallons per day for a number of years. Petitioner estimates that a population of 6,000 could be served under its new proposed design capacity. (Testimony of Forman, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to Petitioner's application for a construction permit, dated May 25, 1979, to modify the existing treatment plant, Respondent issued permit No. DC06-21789 on August 6, 1979. The permit specified that it was for construction of additional tank capacity for an existing 0.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant intended to approve effluent quality, and further stated that plant design capacity would remain at that figure. A subsequent letter from Respondent's subdistrict manager to Petitioner on January 15, 1980, stated that an evaluation of the quality of the surface waters receiving the plant discharge and the effect of such increased discharge would have to be made before processing a request for an increase in permitted flow. (Exhibit 7) On February 8, 1980, Respondent issued a temporary operating permit for Petitioner to temporarily operate a 0.25 MGD contact stabilization sewage treatment plant, including additional tank capacity and tertiary filtration. Specific conditions attached to the permit stated that it was issued to give the permittee a reasonable period of time to complete construction of the modification outlined in DER Permit DC06-21789 and for subsequent assessment of the effects of discharge on receiving waters. The conditions further required that the facility continue to achieve 90 percent removal of BOD5 and total suspended solids at all times with specified average daily discharges of such substances. Another condition required that the effluent from the plant be adequately chlorinated at all times so as to yield the minimum chlorine residual of 0.5 parts per million after a minimum contact period of 15 minutes. (Exhibit 8) Thereafter, on July 21, 1980, petitioner filed the instant application for an operation permit for the facility at a design capacity of 0.60 MGD. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of completion of construction. By letter of December 16, 1980, Respondent's South Florida Subdistrict Manager advised Petitioner that the application for an operating permit had been denied for the reason that monitoring of the Class III receiving waters by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board indicated that the dissolved oxygen concentration was frequently below the minimum of 5 milligrams per liter required by Section 17-3.161(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that Petitioner's plant contributed to the substandard conditions in those waters. Petitioner thereafter requested a Section 120.57(1), F.S., hearing. (Exhibits 1-2, 4, 8) Petitioner's plant discharges into the North New River Canal through a six inch effluent pipe. The canal extends from Lake Okeechobee to the intracoastal waterway approximately five miles in distance from the point of discharge of Petitioner's plant. Monitoring of water quality in the canal for the past several years by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board shows that the dissolved oxygen concentrations at various sampling stations have ranged from below one part per million to in excess of five parts per million, depending upon the season of the year. However, at no station did the dissolved oxygen concentration reach an average of five parts per million. In addition, the tests also showed that BOD5 is generally low in the canal waters. (Testimony of Mazzella, Exhibits 1, 3, 5) Petitioner's modified plant is now capable of treating 0.60 MGD and meets current basic state requirements of 90 percent (secondary) removal of BOD and total suspended solids. In fact, the plant has tertiary treatment and can consistently operate at a level of 95 percent treatment. The data submitted by the applicant as to effluent water quality characteristics showed removal of 98 percent BOD, 97 percent suspended solids, 50 percent total nitrogen, and 25 percent total phosphorus with an average chlorine residual in the effluent of 0.2 parts per million. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent has been established at 6.5 milligrams per liter. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Dodd, Exhibit 1) Respondent's district personnel took one 24-hour sample of the effluent from Petitioner's plant in March 1981 and determined that a concentrate of 14.6 milligrams per liter of ammonia was being discharged to receiving waters. Respondent therefore determined that the dissolved oxygen levels of the canal would be further degraded because approximately 48 to 50 parts per million of dissolved oxygen would be necessary to offset the effects of oxygen removal resulting from the ammonia discharge. Respondent further found that, although the effluent from the plant had 6.5 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen, the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen being discharged could lead to algal blooms and consequent eventual eutrophication of its waters. Respondent's reviewing personnel therefore considers that there would be negative impacts upon the receiving waters if Petitioner discharged its prior licensed capacity of 250,000 gallons per day, and that a discharge of 600,000 gallons per day would double such impacts. Respondent's personnel therefore believes that although Petitioner's facility meets the basic secondary treatment requirements of Rule 17-6.01, Florida Administrative Code, it does not meet the water quality-based effluent limitation specified in Rule 17-6.10. In order to meet such requirements, it would be necessary to redesign the plant for more efficient removal of nutrients or to redirect the discharge. (Testimony of Mazzella) Other facilities adjacent to or near the North New River Canal discharge directly or indirectly into the canal waters and contribute to an unknown degree to the poor quality of the canal waters. Additionally, agricultural use of land produces stormwater runoff containing fertilizer residue into the canal in an unknown amount. A sewage treatment plant operates at optimum level of treatment when it discharges at about 50 percent of its treatment capacity. (Testimony of Mazzella) In 1983, Broward County will require Petitioner's plant to conform to state advanced waste treatment criteria which will provide for additional removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. To meet this requirement, Petitioner, plans to investigate the possibilities of utilizing a landlocked lake on its property near the treatment plant as a seepage pond. Although Petitioner's plant is identified in area regional plans to be diverted to the Hollywood wastewater treatment plant in the future, there is presently no target date for tying in to such a regional facility. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent issue a permit to Petitioner for the operation of its sewage treatment plant, with appropriate conditions as designed to protect the receiving waters. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 27th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred Clark, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin S. Friedman and R.M.C. Rose, Esquires Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's to be "at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent/Applicant, North Orlando Water and Sewer Company, filed an application on August 11, 1981, with Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, seeking a permit to authorize the construction of sewage effluent disposal ponds in Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. On August 16, 1981, the Department advised the Applicant that additional information was required. This information was supplied by Applicant on September 11, 1981. After reviewing the application and supplemental information, the Department determined that Applicant had provided reasonable assurance that the proposed percolation ponds would not adversely affect waters of the State and thereafter issued Permit No. DC59-46435 on September 22, 1981, authorizing the construction of the requested activity. Petitioners are owners of the property on which one of the disposal ponds is to be constructed. On June 12, 1981, Applicant instituted condemnation proceedings in Circuit Court for Seminole County under Chapters 73, 74 and 361, Florida Statutes, seeking to condemn the property so that the facilities could be constructed. The suit remains pending until all necessary permits from the Department are acquired by Applicant. The parties agree that based on plans, test results and other information, the construction of the proposed installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards, rules or regulations. The permit was issued without formal public notice. However, it falls under the class of permits enumerated in Rule 17-1.62(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. That rule makes publication of a notice discretionary on the part of the Department, and no abuse of discretion was shown. Item D(i) on page 7 of the application requires that the Applicant "[i]ndicate the number of potable water supply wells within 500 feet of effluent disposal area, the depths of these wells and their approximate distances from the disposal area." Applicant answered "None". There are no public potable water supply wells within 500 feet of the effluent disposal area. There are several private potable water supply wells within 500 feet of the pond but adequate buffer zones between these private potable water supply wells and the actual effluent disposal area exist. Moreover, Petitioners' expert witness conceded that seepage would be minimal, should not be a concern, and the failure to list the private wells on the application had no effect on the substantive merits of the application. Applicant construed the term "potable water supply wells" to mean only public wells since DER has no jurisdiction over private wells. For this reason, it answered the question in the manner that it did. The Department concurs in this interpretation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Permit No. DC59-46435 be issued to Applicant, North Orlando Water and Sewer Company. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of July, 1982.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's facility is a public water system subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) pursuant to Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or whether it is exempt from those regulations by virtue of Rule 17-22.102 if the facility is subject to regulation by DER, whether Respondent should take the corrective actions set forth in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action and should pay DER's expenses incurred in the pursuit of this case. DER presented the testimony of Cliff McKeown, a potable water engineer, and Linda Frohock, planning manager for the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DER had Exhibits 1-4 admitted into evidence. Respondent, Lex Thompson, presented his own testimony and that of Hugh Kelly. The parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They have been considered and a ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact DER is the Florida administrative agency which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Respondent owns and is responsible for the construction of a potable water distribution main extension ("the facility") which serves a subdivision known as High Bluff Acres-near the community of Midway in Gadsden County, Florida. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On February 1, 1980, Respondent was issued construction permit number DS20-27385 for the facility. The construction permit described the facility as a potable water distribution main extension to the Talquin Electric Company's Midway water- system. The project was to be constructed with approximately 940 linear feet of four inch PVC valves and appurtenances. Specific condition number 15 of the permit restricted operation of the extension until department approval was issued. This approval would be granted upon receipt of certification by the engineer of record as to construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and receipt of two satisfactory bacteriological analyses. DER has not received this information and had not issued an approval for use of the facility. The construction permit expired on September 1, 1981. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent modified the facility by constructing it with 550 feet of one inch to one and one-half inch PVC water mains. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER conducted an inspection of the facility on February 23, 1982. The facility was found to be in use without final DER approval. By letter dated February 26, 1982, DER notified Respondent of his non-compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested Respondent to submit specified compliance items. (See Prehearing Stipulation). In October of 1982, DER personnel contacted Respondent . by telephone. Respondent agreed to obtain a permit renewal and modify the unauthorized water line as soon as funds in the form of rent were released by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). On November 1, 1982, DCA notified DER that payments were being made. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On June 8, 1983, DER notified Respondent of his non- compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested a reply on actions to be taken to correct the deficiency. By letters dated October 18, 1984, and December 17, 1984, DER notified Respondent that the facility was not approved for use. Respondent was further requested to inform DER as to the status of the facility. DER received no response to these requests. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility was not constructed in accordance with DER-approved plans, and DER has issued no written approval or consent for alterations to the system. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent placed the facility in service without submitting a certification of completion and a copy of satisfactory bacteriological results to DER for approval and clearance. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility is not designed to provide maximum hourly system demand without development of distribution pressure lower than 20 psi. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER has incurred costs and expenses in the pursuit of this case in the amount of $453.50. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent's facility consists of distribution and storage facilities only and does not have any collection or treatment facilities. It obtains all its water from and is not owned or operated by the Talquin Electric System. Further, Respondent is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce. (See Prehearing Stipulation) The public water distribution system constructed by Respondent is connected to twenty dwelling units in twelve structures. The High Bluff Acres subdivision is a government- subsidized, but privately-owned, low-income housing development, wherein DCA, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), subsidizes the payment of rent for the housing. Respondent entered into several agreements on behalf of Salter, Stephens and Thompson, with the DCA to rehabilitate existing structures at High Bluff Acres and thus qualify for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Program (HAP) established by HUD. The purpose for entering into the HAP contracts is to provide low cost housing to low income persons. These agreements were entered into over a period of several months during 1981 and 1982. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation pursuant to the agreements, Respondent entered into a HAP contract for each structure in High Bluff Acres, for a total of twelve structures (20 dwelling units). The HAP contract establishes the contract rent that can be allowed for each individual dwelling unit in a structure (the contract covers one structure). The contract rent is calculated according to a formula established by HUD for such purposes, and includes monetary allowances for utilities or other services which are provided by the owner. It does allow the lessor to recover his capital expenses in rehabilitating an individual housing unit. DER Exhibits 3 and 4 are two of the twelve HAP contracts entered into by the Department of Community Affairs and Respondent, Lex Thompson. Each of these contracts has an Exhibit B which is entitled "statement of services, maintenance and , utilities to be provided by owner." These exhibits show that Respondent has agreed to provide water to the units under the HAP contract. Contract rents paid to Respondent as authorized agent for the partnership include an allocation of money to reimburse Respondent for providing water to the tenants in the dwelling units. However, subsequent to Thompson's and DCA's entering into the contracts for payment of these rental subsidies, Respondent notified DCA that he had incurred additional capital expenses. Since his rental payments were already at the maximum allowable rate, however, Respondent did not seek to modify the aforementioned contracts because the amendment would not result in any greater payment of monies to him. At no time has Respondent amended the terms of the HAP contracts with respect to provision of water to the tenants at High Bluff Acres. He is still receiving the reimbursement for provision of water to tenants. The general partnership which had been receiving contract rents for the dwelling units was dissolved in May, 1985, and the contracts for each structure were assigned to various individuals. Respondent, individually, owns one structure and his wife owns another. DER has received no potable water quality or quantity complaints regarding the High Bluff Acres subdivision. Moreover, the potable water system existing in the High Bluff Acres subdivision does not constitute a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein order the following corrective actions: That within 45 days, Respondent shall hire an engineer registered in Florida to design a new distribution system for High Bluff Acres or modifications to the existing system, and submit a completed application to the Department for a permit to construct or modify the system. That within 60 days of issuance of the permit, Respondent shall have the distribution system installed, tested(including pressure testing, bacterial testing, disinfectant-testing) and shall have the engineer sign and seal the plans indicating to the Department that the system conforms with the approved plans, and both DER and American Water Works Association standards. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay the Department's costs and expenses in the amount of $453.50, and that same be paid to the Department by cashier's check within 30days. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESL1NG 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 4th day of November, 1985 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 13). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 17). Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 18). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 19). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 22). Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 21). Rulings on Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 1). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 2). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 3). Proposed Finding of Fact 4, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 4). The second sentence is rejected as being unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 5). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 6). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 7). Proposed Finding of Fact 8, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 8). The remainder of Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 12). Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 14). Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Facts 19 and 20). Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is rejected as unsupported by the evidence, irrelevant and conclusory. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 23), except that it is rejected as it relates to a potential threat because that portion is unsupported by the competent, credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Clare E. Gray, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Hyde, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a procurement protest. The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent’s award of the "Agreement for the Construction and Operation of a Seawater Desalination Plant and Water Purchase Agreement" ("WPA") to Intervenor, S & W Water, LLC ("S&W") on July 19, 1999, is contrary to Tampa Bay Water's (TBW’s) governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, or is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additional issues presented for decision are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to maintain this protest; and (2) whether, by participating in the procurement process, Petitioner has waived or is estopped from claiming irregularities arising out of that process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that TBW enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Formal Protest. Jurisdiction is reserved for consideration of S&W's request for a determination of improper purpose under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, if such request is made by motion within 10 days from the issuance of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles W. Pittman, Esquire 400 North Tampa Street Suite 1040 Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard A. Harrison, Esquire John W. Wilcox, Esquire Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, P.A. Post Office Box 2111 Barnett Plaza, Suite 1240 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-2111 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3950 John H. Rains, III, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 One Tampa City Center, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue water use permit (WUP) No. 2004912.006 to the City of Lakeland (City), and if so, how much water should be allocated under the permit and what conditions should be imposed on the allocation, particularly in regard to withdrawals from the City's Northeast Wellfield (NEWF).
Findings Of Fact Introduction This is an unusual case in that the District gave notice of its intent to issue a permit that the City does not want and that the District staff testified that the City is not even entitled to based upon the information submitted prior to and at the final hearing. That said, there is no disagreement between the parties that a permit should be issued to the City. Indeed, despite the District Staff's testimony that the City failed to provide “reasonable assurances” prior to or at the final hearing on a variety of issues, the District takes the position in its PRO that a permit should be issued to the City, subject to various conditions and limitations. There is also no disagreement between the parties that the permit should include an allocation of 28.03 mgd from the City’s Northwest Wellfield (NWWF). The main areas of disagreement between the District and the City are the duration of the permit; the total allocation of water under the permit; and, perhaps most significant, the total allocation from the NEWF. Parties The City is an incorporated municipality located in Polk County. The City is within the boundaries of the District and is within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) designated by the District. The City is the applicant for the WUP at issue in this case, No. 20004912.006. The City operates a public water utility that provides potable water and wastewater services to customers in and around the City. The utility’s water service area extends beyond the City limits into surrounding unincorporated areas of Polk County. The District is the administrative agency responsible for conservation, protection, management and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D. The District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on the WUP at issue in this case. Stipulated Facts The parties stipulated that the City’s substantial interests have been adversely affected by the District’s intent to issue the proposed permit, and that the proposed permit is different from the permit that the City applied for. The parties also stipulated that there is reasonable assurance that the City’s proposed water use will not interfere with a reservation of water as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.302; that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion; that the proposed use will incorporate the use of alternative water supplies to the greatest extent practicable; and that the proposed use will not cause water to go to waste. The City’s Wellfields Overview The City obtains the water that its water utility provides to its customers from two wellfields, the NWWF and the NEWF. The NWWF is located north of Lake Parker in close proximity to Interstate 4 and Kathleen Road. It provides water to the Williams Water Treatment Plant, from which the water is distributed throughout the City water utility’s service area. The NWWF is located on the Lakeland Ridge, which is a geographic feature that is approximately 250 to 260 feet above sea level. The Lakeland Ridge has a thick clay intermediate confining unit that isolates the surficial aquifer from the underlying aquifers. The NEWF is located to the north of Interstate 4, adjacent to Old Polk City Road. It provides water to the Combee Water Treatment Plant (Combee), from which the water is distributed throughout the City water utility’s service area. The NEWF is located at an elevation of approximately 135 feet above sea level. The surficial aquifer at the NEWF is relatively thin, and the intermediate confining unit at the NEWF is not as thick as it is at the NWWF. The Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) begins at approximately 65 below land surface at the NEWF. The City’s water treatment plants are traditional lime softening plants and are not able to treat brackish groundwater or surface water to the extent necessary for human consumption. It would be cost-prohibitive to implement a process to treat brackish water at the plants. Relevant Permitting History The City’s water utility has been in operation for more than 100 years, and the NWWF has been in operation since at least the early 1980’s. The earliest permit for the NWWF contained in the record is permit No. 204912, which was issued by the District in January 1987. The permit authorized average annual withdrawals of 28.3 mgd, and had an expiration date of January 1993. The NEWF was first permitted by the District in December 1989. The permit, No. 209795.00, authorized the City to pump an average of 9.0 mgd from the NEWF. The permit had a six-year duration, with a December 1995 expiration date. The permits for the NWWF and the NEWF were combined into a single permit in October 1993. The permit, No. 204912.03, authorized the City to pump a total of 28.1 mgd, with 9.0 mgd from the NEWF. The permit had a 10-year duration, with an October 2003 expiration date. In December 2002, the City's WUP was administratively modified pursuant to the District’s SWUCA rules. The modified permit, No. 20004912.004, did not change the permitted quantities at the NEWF or the 2003 expiration date, but the total allocation was reduced to 28.03 mgd. In October 2003, prior to the expiration of the existing permit, the City submitted an application to renew and modify its WUP permit. The application requested a 20-year permit with a total allocation of 32.8 mgd, with up to 16.0 mgd from the NEWF. During the permit review process, the City amended its application to increase the requested total allocation by 4.0 mgd (from 32.8 mgd to 36.8 mgd) and to decrease the requested duration of the permit by five years (from 2023 to 2018). The 36.8 mgd requested by the City was to be allocated between the NWWF (28.03 mgd) and the NEWF (8.77 mgd). The City supplemented its application during the permit review process in response to multiple requests for additional information and clarification from the District. The information provided by the City in support of the application is extensive; the “permit file” received into evidence consisted of approximately 2,500 pages, and the entire file is approximately twice that size.2 The review process culminated in what the District staff considered to be a “negotiated permit”3 that would initially authorize pumping of 33.03 mgd, with 28.03 from the NWWF, 1.5 mgd from the NEWF, and 3.5 mgd from a production well to be constructed at Combee. The proposed permit includes a phasing schedule that would allow for increased withdrawals -- up to 35.03 mgd total and 4.0 mgd from the NEWF4 -- if the City is able to demonstrate to the District’s satisfaction that the increased pumping will not cause adverse environmental impacts. The District gave notice of its intent to issue the proposed permit on December 29, 2006, and the permit was placed on the “consent agenda” for the District Governing Board’s meeting on January 30, 2007. On January 23, 2007, before the proposed permit was considered by the Governing Board,5 the City timely filed a petition challenging the proposed permit. The petition alleges that the proposed permit does not allocate sufficient water to meet the City's projected population demands in 2018 and that it does not allocate water quantities from the NEWF and the NWWF in the manner requested by the City. The NEWF The NEWF is approximately 880 acres in size. Wetlands comprise approximately half of the site. The NEWF is located within the boundaries of the Green Swamp, which is an area of critical state concern (ACSC) designated under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Green Swamp is a hydrologically and environmentally important feature of central Florida encompassing thousands of acres of cypress wetlands, marshes, and forests. In 1992, a task force recommended that public water supply wellfields “of capacity greater than 1.8 mgd (average 3.6 mgd maximum)” from the UFA be discouraged in the Green Swamp ACSC in favor of wells from the Lower Floridan Aquifer in order to “mitigate drawdown impacts to the surficial aquifer system and resulting dehydration of wetlands . . . .” There is no evidence of that recommendation being formally adopted by the District or any other governmental agency, and the District does not have more stringent permitting criteria for WUP applications in the Green Swamp, except that it considers potential adverse impacts to all isolated wetlands and not just those larger than one-half acre in size.6 The City installed five 16-inch production wells at the NEWF, along with a number of associated monitoring wells. The production wells, which are cased to approximately 120 feet with a total depth of approximately 750 feet, pump water from the UFA. Pumping at the NEWF started in October 2005. The City has been pumping 4.0 mgd from the NEWF since that time. The City has spent over $34 million to bring the NEWF into service. The costs directly related to the acquisition of the NEWF site and the installation of the wells at the site account for approximately $7.6 million of that amount; the remainder of the costs are for associated infrastructure, such as the installation of water lines from the NEWF site and the construction of Combee. The wetlands on the NEWF site are predominantly isolated cypress wetlands, although there are some connected systems. Isolated wetlands are more susceptible to impacts from water deprivation than are connected wetland systems. The uplands on the NEWF site consist primarily of open pasture and fields and areas of planted pines. Extensive drainage improvements were constructed on the NEWF site between 1941 and 1980 when the site was being used as improved pastureland for cattle grazing and managed woodland for logging and silviculture. The improvements included the construction of a network of drainage ditches, culverts, roads, a grass landing strip, and a gas pipeline. The intent and effect of the drainage improvements was to remove surface water from the onsite wetlands. Historical aerial photographs show that these efforts were successful. The wetlands on the NEWF were adversely impacted by the drainage improvements, but for the most part, they are still functioning, albeit low-quality wetlands. The extensive ditching on the NEWF site continues to have an adverse impact on the wetlands even though the ditches have not been maintained and do not function as efficiently as they once did. The planted pine trees on the NEWF site may also be adversely affecting the wetlands through increased evapotranspiration from the surficial aquifer. However, the evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent of the impact from evapotranspiration. The present condition of the wetlands at the NEWF is not the result of recent activity. The biological indicators in the wetlands (e.g., adventitious roots on cypress trunks, large oak trees in the wetlands, red maple trees in areas that had at one time been dominated by cypress trees) show that the degraded condition of the wetlands dates back decades. The progressive draining and degradation of the wetlands caused by the ditching and other drainage improvements constructed on the NEWF site is apparent in the historic aerial photographs of the site. The size of the wetlands and the “hydrologic signatures” (e.g., standing water around the rims of wetlands and across the site, extensive cypress canopies, etc.) visible on earlier aerial photographs are less visible or non- existent in more recent aerial photographs. The wetlands on the NEWF site have shown no biological indicators of impacts from the pumping at the NEWF that started in October 2005. This does not necessarily mean that the pumping is not impacting the wetlands because the parties' experts agree that it can take many years for such biological indicators to appear. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the historical drainage improvements on the NEWF site were the primary cause of the degraded condition of the wetlands.7 The more persuasive evidence also establishes that unless altered, the drainage improvements on the NEWF site will continue to have an adverse effect on the wetlands. The City proposed a conceptual Wetland Improvement Plan (WIP) that is designed to restore and enhance the wetlands on the NEWF. A central component of the WIP is the reengineering and alteration of the drainage features by installing “ditch blocks” in some areas and culverts in other areas. The WIP also includes not replanting the pine trees on the NEWF site once the existing planted pines are harvested. The ditch blocks and other modifications to the drainage features are intended to hold water on the NEWF site and redirect it to the wetlands. This will help to hydrate the wetlands, increase soil moisture levels, and allow more water to percolate into the surficial aquifer following rain events. The District staff expressed some concerns with the City’s WIP at the final hearing, but acknowledged that the plan’s “conception . . . has a lot of merit.” Indeed, in its PRO, the District recommends the “installation of ditch blocks and similar measures at the [NEWF] site.” The WIP, if properly implemented, has the potential to enhance the wetlands by returning them to a more natural condition. The City will likely need an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the District before any system of ditch blocks can be installed. The details of the WIP can be worked out during the ERP permitting process.8 A good monitoring plan is part of providing reasonable assurances. The parties agree that a monitoring plan should be included as a permit condition, and the EMMPs attached to the parties’ respective PROs appear to be materially the same. The City has monitored the wetlands at the NEWF since 1994, pursuant to a specific condition in the 1993 WUP permit. The methodology used by the City to monitor the wetlands was approved by the District, and despite the fact that the City has submitted biannual monitoring reports to the District for almost 14 years, the District expressed no concerns regarding the methodology or results of the monitoring until recently. The District commenced its own wetland assessment procedure at the NEWF in May 2007, which included setting “normal pools” in several of the wetlands. “Normal pool” describes the level at which water stands in a wetland in most years for long enough during the wet season to create biological indicators of the presence of water. The establishment of normal pools was part of the District’s efforts to establish the “existing natural system” against which any post-withdrawal adverse impacts at the NEWF would be measured in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications (BOR).9 Normal pools could not be established in several of the wetlands because there was no measurable standing water above the surface in the wetland. District staff observed similar conditions –- i.e., no standing water in the wetlands –- on at least one occasion following a significant rain event prior to the start of pumping at the NEWF. The District does not have a rule governing the setting of normal pools, but the City’s experts did not take issue with the normal pools set by the District or the methodology used by the District to set the normal pools. The EMMP proposed by the City is an extensive monitoring plan that incorporates a series of onsite monitoring wells, wetland monitoring stations for vegetation and hydrogeology, monitoring of pumping rates and pumping data, and monitoring of rainfall data. The EMMP will make use of the extensive data that has been collected on the NEWF site since the 1990’s as well as the normal pools set by the District, and if properly implemented, the EMMP will detect any potential adverse impacts as they occur to allow for remedial mitigation. The District staff acknowledged at the final hearing that the EMMP proposed by the City “with some minor modifications” is an appropriate plan to monitor changes in the wetlands at the NEWF. The necessary "minor modifications" were not explained at the final hearing, and as noted above, there does not appear to be any material difference in the EMMPs attached to the parties’ respective PROs. The Green Swamp is generally viewed as a “leaky” area, with little or no confinement between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer. Regional data, including studies by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and the District, reflect that the NEWF is located in a “transitional area” between areas of little or no confinement to the north, northwest, and east of the NEWF and areas of thicker confinement to the south. However, at least one study (published in 1977 USGS report) shows the NEWF in an area designated as "poor" for its relative potential for downward leakage. Regional data may be used to gain knowledge about the aquifer properties at a potential well site, but such data is not a valid substitute site-specific data. Indeed, the location of the NEWF in a “transitional area” makes site-specific data even more important. The City used geologic cross-sections (e.g., soil borings and core samples) at the NEWF to determine the site’s lithologic characteristics. By contrast, the District relied primarily on USGS reports and other regional data to postulate as to the lithologic characteristics of the NEWF. As a result, the City’s position regarding the lithologic characteristics of the NEWF was more persuasive than the District’s position. The lithology of the NEWF site consists of a shallow, sandy surficial aquifer, which extends to a depth of 3 to 5 feet, proceeding downward to sandy clay and clay sand semi- confining layers, alternating with impermeable clay units, interspersed with an intermediate aquifer composed of sandy clays and clay sands that contain water, proceeding downward to the limestone of the UFA. The presence of clay layers between the intermediate aquifer and the UFA, together with clay layers between the intermediate aquifer and the surficial aquifer, provide two layers of protection between the pumped aquifer and the surficial aquifer and wetlands, and serve to ameliorate any impacts to the surficial aquifer caused by withdrawals from the UFA. “Leakance” is a measure of vertical conductivity that describes the rate at which water flows through a confining unit. As a result, leakance is one of the most important factors to consider when modeling surficial aquifer impacts and potential wetland impacts from groundwater pumping. Generally, a higher leakance value is an indication of a “leakier” system with less confinement between the surficial aquifer and the UFA. The “leakier” the system, the greater the impacts of pumping on the surficial aquifer will be. The District contends that the confining unit underlying the NEWF is “leaky” and that the pumping at the NEWF is likely to directly and adversely affect the onsite wetlands. However, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the lower leakance value derived by the City based upon the site-specific lithology of the NEWF and the data from the aquifer performance tests (APTs) conducted at the NEWF is more accurate than the higher leakance value urged by the District. The purpose of an APT is to determine the hydrologic parameters of an aquifer. In particular, an APT is used to determine the transmissivity, leakance, and storage values of the aquifer. Transmissivity is a measure of how easily water flows through the ground, and storage is a measure of the amount of water in the porous spaces of the aquifer. Generally, a higher transmissivity value and a lower storage value indicate better confinement. There have been three APTs conducted at the NEWF. The first APT (APT-1) was conducted in 1989 as part of the initial permitting of the NEWF. A high transmissivity value and a low storage value were calculated in APT-1. A leakance value was not calculated. The results of APT-1 were presented to the District to justify the City’s request to pump 9.0 mgd from the NEWF, which the District approved. The 1993 permit combining the NWWF and the NEWF required the City to conduct a long-term APT in order to “determine the leakance parameter between the surficial and intermediate aquifers and the leakance parameter between the intermediate and Upper Floridan aquifers.” The permit stated that if the hydrologic parameters obtained in the APT were different from those used in the model submitted in support of the initial WUP, the City would have to revise the model and, if necessary, modify the WUP to reduce withdrawals. This second APT (APT-2) was a seven-day test conducted by the City in January 2001 in accordance with a methodology approved by the District. An “exceedingly low” leakance value of 4.5 x 10-4 gallons per day per cubic foot was calculated in APT-2. The transmissivity and storage values calculated in APT- 2 were essentially the same as the values calculated in APT-1. The District expressed concerns with the results of APT-2, and in December 2001, the District advised the City that it should “proceed with caution during the planning of infrastructure (pipelines) for the [NEWF]” because the “wellfield may not be able to produce the volume of water the City has stated that would like from the wellfield, without causing adverse impacts.”10 Based upon these concerns, the District conducted an APT (APT-3) at the NEWF in April and May 2003. The parties’ experts agree that data from APT-3 is reliable, but the experts disagree in their interpretation of the data, particularly in regards to the leakance value. The City’s experts calculated a leakance value of 1.4 x 10-4 feet per day per foot, which is a low leakance value. The expert presented by the District, Dann Yobbi, calculated a higher leakance value of 3.4 x 10-3 feet per day per foot, which suggests relatively “leaky” aquifer. The leakance value calculated by the City’s experts is more persuasive than the value calculated by Mr. Yobbi because Mr. Yobbi did not “de-trend” the data from APT-3 based upon the general declines in water levels occurring at the time of APT-3. Indeed, Mr. Yobbi testified that he is in the process of revising his report on APT-3 to address this issue and he acknowledged that the surficial aquifer showed only a “slight response” to the pumping during APT-3. The leakance value calculated by the City’s experts in APT-3 is consistent with the leakance value calculated in APT-2. The transmissivity and storage values calculated in APT-3 are also consistent with the values calculated in APT-1 and APT-2. The reliability of the leakance values and other aquifer parameters calculated by the City’s experts for the NEWF is confirmed by water level data compiled by the City pursuant to the monitoring requirements in the existing WUP. The water level data was collected from monitoring wells at the NEWF in the surficial aquifer, the intermediate aquifer, and the UFA. The City began collecting this data in 1994 and it continues to collect and report the data to the District as required by the existing WUP. The water level monitoring data reflects that the surficial aquifer at the NEWF responds almost immediately to rain events. By contrast, the intermediate aquifer and UFA show a more subdued response to rainfall events, which is indicative of good confinement, especially between the UFA and the surficial aquifer. The water level monitoring data shows that rainfall or lack of rainfall is the major controlling factor relative to the rate of surficial aquifer recharge at the NEWF. The water level monitoring data since pumping began at the NEWF shows that the pumping at 4.0 mgd is having a minimal impact on the surficial aquifer at the NEWF. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the general decline in water levels that has been observed in the monitoring wells at the NEWF over the past several years is more likely than not attributable to the severe drought in the area and the onsite drainage features, and not the pumping at the NEWF.11 Moreover, the more persuasive evidence shows that following the start of pumping at the NEWF in October 2005, the water levels in the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers returned to the historic patterns of up and down response to rainfall events shown throughout the thirteen-year period of record: the surficial aquifer fills quickly (as it receives the rainwater directly) and empties quickly (through a combination of surface drainage, evapotranspiration, evaporation, and leakage), while the UFA responds with more gradual rising and falling (as water enters the aquifer through recharge areas and slowly percolates into the aquifer through more confined areas). The analysis of the water level data collected during APT-3 showed a similar trend in the rates of decline in the surficial aquifer as were reflected in the hydrographic record of the monitoring well data collected by the City since 1994. The natural, post-rainfall rate of decline under non-pumping conditions was consistent with the rate of decline observed during pumping conditions in APT-3. In sum, the interpretation of the water level data by the City’s experts was more persuasive than the interpretation by the District’s experts. Modeling of Predicted Drawdowns and Impacts The City utilized two different models to predict drawdowns from the proposed pumping at the NWWF and NEWF: the USGS “Mega Model” and the District’s District-Wide Regulation Model (DWRM). The models incorporated regional data published by the USGS and the District as well as site-specific data from the NEWF, including the lithologic information collected through soil borings and the hydrologic parameters of the aquifers calculated in APT-3. The models were calibrated and de-trended to remove “background conditions” (e.g., regional water level declines) so that the models would only show the predicted effects of the pumping. Once the calibration was complete, the models were run to simulate the effect of the pumping on the groundwater flows in the area. The models produced contour maps that showed the predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifer as a result of the pumping. The USGS Mega Model predicted that pumping the NEWF at 8.77 mgd would result in drawdowns of approximately 0.5 foot in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF. The DWRM model predicted a 0.18 foot drawdown in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF when pumping the NEWF at 4.0 mgd, and a drawdown of 0.4 foot when pumping at 8.77 mgd. The same models were used to predict the “cumulative” drawdowns by taking into account pumping by existing legal users as well as the pumping at the NWWF. The cumulative models assumed pumping of 36.8 mgd from the City’s wellfields. The USGS Mega Model predicted that cumulative drawdowns in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF would be an additional 0.3 feet, with 8.77 mgd of pumping at the NEWF. The DWRM model predicted that the cumulative drawdowns in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF would be 0.4 foot with 4.0 mgd of pumping at the NEWF, and 0.6 foot at 8.77 mgd of pumping at the NEWF. The City utilized the 1995 data set of existing legal users in its cumulative DWRM modeling because that was the data set provided by the District. The difference between the 1995 data set and the more current 2002 data set is on the order of 20 mgd, which is inconsequential in comparison to the 1.1 billion gallons per day of withdrawals included in the model that are spread over the geographic extent of the District. The predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifers in and around the NEWF would be considerably greater if the hydrologic parameters calculated by Mr. Yobbi were used in the DWRM model. For example, the District’s modeling predicted drawdowns between 1.0 and 1.2 feet in the surficial aquifer in and around the NEWF when pumping 1.5 mgd from the NEWF, 3.5 mgd from Combee, and 28.03 mgd from the NWWF. The wetlands experts presented by the parties agreed that the level of drawdown predicted by the City at the NEWF has the potential to adversely impact the wetlands on the site. The experts also agreed that there is no bright line as to the amount of drawdown that will adversely impact the wetlands. The City’s expert, Dr. Michael Dennis, testified that drawdowns in the surficial aquifer between 0.18 foot and 0.5 foot “probably” would not affect the wetlands at all, or at least “not measurably.” He also testified that drawdowns between 0.5 foot and one foot “are the drawdowns that you need to be concerned about.” The District’s expert, John Emery, testified that a drawdown in the surficial aquifer of 0.4 foot “could” adversely affect the wetlands if no mitigation is provided, but that a drawdown of 0.2 to 0.3 foot might not.12 The WIP is expected to increase the amount of water that gets to the wetlands on the NEWF site. However, the extent to which the WIP will increase the water levels in the wetlands and offset the predicted drawdowns in the surficial aquifer is unknown at this point. Limiting pumping at the NEWF to 4.0 mgd is reasonable and prudent based upon the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the WIP and the experts’ testimony regarding the level of drawdowns that likely would, and would not, adversely affect the wetlands at the NEWF. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the drawdown predicted at 4.0 mgd of pumping –- 0.18 foot (individually) and 0.4 feet (cumulatively) –- is not likely to adversely impact the already significantly degraded wetlands at the NEWF, particularly if the WIP is properly implemented. Demand Projections The City did not use the full 28 mgd allocated under its existing WUP. It pumped only 21 mgd in the 12 months preceding October 2003, when the permit was scheduled to expire; it pumped only 26 mgd in 2006; and the pumping for 2007 was expected to be approximately 1 mgd lower than the pumping in 2006. The City's WUP application contained population and demand projections for different years in the future. For 2014 (the permit expiration date proposed by the District), the “functional population”13 of the service area was projected to be 183,264 and the average demand was projected to be 29.5 mgd; for 2023 (the original permit expiration date requested by the City), the projections were 203,721 people and 32.8 mgd; and for 2018 (the permit expiration date now requested by the City), the projections were 192,176 people and 30.9 mgd. The projections in the WUP application were prepared in 2003, and City's primary consultant, Charles Drake, testified that the data was “accurate” and “reliable.” However, more recent data shows that the population projections in the WUP application were slightly understated. The more recent data is contained in the “Water Services Territory Population Estimates and Projections” reports prepared by the City's utility department in March 2006 and March 2007. The reports include estimates of the functional population for prior years, and projections of the functional population for future years. The estimates reflect the “actual” population for a given year in the past, whereas the projections reflect the “expected” population for future years. The estimates and projections in these reports, like the projections in the WUP application, were prepared in accordance with the methodology contained in the BOR. The District did not take issue with the projections in the reports or the WUP application. The estimated functional population of the service area in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 exceeded the population projected for those years in the WUP application. On average, the projected populations for each year understated the “actual” populations by approximately 3,500 persons.14 Likewise, the population projections for future years in the March 2007 report are higher than the population projections for the same years in the WUP application. For example, the report projects that the functional population of the service area in 2014 will be 191,208 (as compared to 183,264 in the WUP application), and that population in 2018 will be 203,247 (as compared to 192,176 in the WUP application). The City presented “revised” population projections at the final hearing in City Exhibit 140. The revised projections were based on the projections in the March 2006 report, but also included data from the “water allocation waiting list” that is part of the City’s concurrency management system that was created by the City in response to legislation passed in 2005 requiring local governments to allocate and approve requests for water for new development. The population projections in City Exhibit 140 are 234,959 in 2014; 247,390 in 2018; and 264,556 in 2023. These projections include an additional 43,471 persons related to new development in the concurrency management system, as well as the additional 2,600 to 3,000 persons projected per year in the WUP application and the March 2006 report. The City failed to establish the reasonableness of the revised population projections. Indeed, among other things, the evidence was not persuasive that the additional population attributed to the new development in the concurrency management system is not already taken into account, at least in part, in the annual population increases projected in the March 2006 report.15 The most reasonable population projections for the service area of the City's utility are those in the March 2007 report.16 The record does not contain demand projections directly related to the population projections in the March 2007 report. However, demand projections for those population projections can be inferred from the WUP application (City Exhibit 1(a)(2), at 0036) and City Exhibit 140 (at page 0015). The 2014 projected population of 191,208 in the March 2007 report roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2018 in the WUP application (192,176) for which the projected demand was 30.9 mgd; and it also roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2008 in City Exhibit 140 (193,001), for which the projected demand was 28.7. Thus, in 2014, it is reasonable to expect that demand will be between 28.7 and 30.9 mgd. The 2018 projected population of 203,247 in the March 2007 report roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2023 in the WUP application (203,721) for which the projected demand was 32.8 mgd; and it also roughly corresponds to the projected population for 2009 in City Exhibit 140 (201,983), for which the projected demand was 30.2 mgd. Thus, in 2018, it is reasonable to expect that demand will be between 30.2 and 32.8 mgd. The demand projections in the WUP for 2014 (29.5 mgd) and 2018 (30.9 mgd) fall within the range inferred for the populations in the March 2007 report. Thus, even though the population projections in the WUP application for 2014 and 2018 are understated, the demand projections for those years in the WUP are still reasonable. The demand projections in City Exhibit 140 –- 35.3 mgd in 2014 and 36.6 mgd in 2018 –- are overstated as a result of unreliable population projections upon which they are based. Other Issues Duration of Permit The 1987 permit for the NWWF had a six-year duration, as did the original 1989 permit for the NEWF. The 1993 permit had a 10-year duration, but that permit did not increase the amount of authorized withdrawals; it simply combined the authorizations for the NWWF and the NEWF into a single permit. In this case, the City is requesting a permit that expires in 2018, which was a 15-year duration at the time the application was filed, but now is a 10-year duration. The District is proposing a permit with a six-year duration, expiring in 2014. The District is authorized to approve a WUP with a duration of up to 50 years. The District’s rules provide that the duration of the permit is to be determined based upon “the degree and likelihood of potential adverse impacts to the water resource or existing users.” The District’s rules require that in order for the District to approve a permit with a duration of more than 10 years, the applicant is required to present sufficient facts to demonstrate that such a permit is “appropriate.” Section 1.9 of the BOR provides “guidelines” regarding the duration of permits. The guidelines in the BOR are not binding on the District, but the nearly identical language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.321 is binding on the District. The BOR provides that a six-year permit is to be issued for renewal permits “with modification to increase the quantity withdrawn by more than or equal to 100,000 gpd or 10% or more of the existing permitted quantities, whichever is greater.” The BOR and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D- 2.321(2)(b) also provide that a six-year permit is to be issued “where the potential for significant adverse impacts are predicted.” The renewal permit that the City is seeking requests an increase of 8.7 mgd (from 28.1 mgd to 36.8 mgd) over the existing permitted quantities, which exceeds the 10 percent threshold in Section 1.9 of the BOR. Moreover, there is a potential for significant adverse impact from the renewal permit that the City is seeking. Accordingly, a six-year permit is appropriate under the District’s rules and the guidelines in the BOR. The City failed to demonstrate why a longer permit duration is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. District staff testified at the final hearing that the permit term should be calculated from the date the permit is issued, which will be some point in 2008. Therefore, the permit should have an expiration date of 2014. Offsite Impacts The City used the modeling described above to predict the drawdown in the UFA from the proposed pumping in order to determine whether there will be any adverse impacts on existing legal users. The predicted drawdown in the UFA in the vicinity of the NEWF ranges from 1.6 feet to 2.4 feet with 4.0 mgd of pumping at the NEWF, and between 3.4 feet and 5 feet with pumping at 8.77 mgd. The predicted drawdown in the UFA in the vicinity of the NWWF ranges from 10.0 to 14.0 feet, with 28.03 mgd of pumping at the NWWF.17 These predicted drawdowns are not expected to have any adverse impacts on existing legal users that have wells in the UFA. Most permitted wells in the UFA use vertical turbine pumps, which can easily accommodate fluctuations in water levels of five feet or more. The City has not received any complaints from existing users since it began pumping 4.0 mgd at the NEWF in October 2005. The pumping at the NWWF, which has been ongoing for more than 20 years, has not caused any adverse impacts to existing legal users. The City is required under the existing WUP to respond to any adverse impact complaints from existing legal users, and it is required to implement mitigation, as needed. In short, City is required to do whatever is necessary (e.g., relocating or increasing capacity of pump, lowering pipes) to return any well impacted by the pumping to its prior function. The City did not evaluate the potential impacts of its proposed pumping on unpermitted wells because the District does not maintain a database of unpermitted wells. However, the City acknowledges that if its pumping impacts an unpermitted well, it will be obligated to mitigate those impacts in the same manner that it is required to mitigate impacts to existing permitted users. The predicted drawdowns for water bodies in the vicinity of the NWWF and the NEWF that have designated Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) -- Lake Bonny, Lake Bonnett, and the Cone Ranch wetlands -- are minimal, on the order of 0.1 foot. The City evaluated the impacts of pumping on contaminated sites listed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the vicinity of the NWWF and NEWF. Based upon the results of the modeling conducted by the City, there is no reason to expect that pumping at the NWWF and/or NEWF will have any measurable impact on those sites or lead to pollution of the aquifer. Potential Impacts of NWWF Pumping The only concern expressed by the District with respect to the pumping at the NWWF relates to the potential environmental impacts of the pumping on Lake Bonny and Lake Bonnett. The City agreed to include those lakes in its EMMP. Combee Combee is located approximately four miles south of the NEWF. There is a relatively thick clay confining unit at Combee, which, according to the District, makes it a better location for water withdrawals than the NEWF. The District conducted an APT at Combee in 2006. The hydrologic parameters derived from the APT, and the “preliminary modeling” performed by the District show that the City may be able to withdraw at least 3.0 mgd from wells at Combee. The proposed permit authorized pumping of 3.5 mgd from Combee. The proposed permit also included a phasing schedule pursuant to which pumping at Combee would be decreased to 3.0 mgd if pumping at the NEWF reached 4.0 mgd. The City expressed an interest in obtaining water from Combee throughout the permitting process. However, the City represented at the outset of the final hearing that the Combee well is “off the table because the City wishes to maximize the withdrawal allocation from [the NEWF].” The City stated in its PRO that it is “willing to consider permitting a production well at [Combee] as a potential mitigation resource, should unexpected adverse impacts require the City to divert production to a back-up resource.” The District stated in its PRO that the Combee well is “available for mitigation purposes," and that the City “should be encouraged to apply for a WUP for withdrawals from Combee up to 3.0 mgd to provide additional mitigation for pumping from the [NEWF].” Pump rotation Rotation of pumping between the wells in a wellfield is a standard practice, and it can be an effective mitigation technique. The City utilizes well rotation programs at the NWWF and the NEWF in order to minimize the stress on the production aquifers. Rotating pumping between the production wells at the NEWF is particularly appropriate because several of the wells are located in very close proximity to wetlands. Rotating the pumping will help to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the wetlands. The actual rotation schedule is an operational decision that is made based upon observed conditions at the wellfield site, rather than something that is typically included in the WUP. Conservation and Reuse The City has a four-tiered conservation rate structure, modeled after the District’s graduated water-rates prototype. The rate structure imposes higher unit costs as individual consumption increases, thereby discouraging wasteful uses of water. The City has a comprehensive leak detection program aimed at preventing the loss of water within the City’s water distribution system. This program has helped to reduce the per- capita per-day consumption rate for the City by reducing the volume of water that is wasted before it is delivered to the consumer. The City has implemented irrigation restrictions aimed at reducing the quantities of water used by domestic customers for lawn and garden watering. The per capita rate of water consumption is a measure of the effectiveness of a water conservation program; the lower the figure, the better. The City’s per capita rate has increased in recent years, but its adjusted gross per capita rate has decreased. The adjusted gross per capita rate takes into account “significant users,” which are defined as non-residential customers other than golf courses that use more than 25,000 gallons per day or that represent more than five percent of the utility’s annual water use.18 The City’s per capita rate in 2005 was 145.69 gallons per day, and its adjusted gross per capita rate in that year was 132.01 gallons per day. The adjusted gross per capita rate may not exceed 150 gallons per day within the SWUCA. Thus, the City will be required to continue its conservation programs (and implement additional programs, if necessary) to ensure that its adjusted gross per capita rate does not exceed 150 gallons per day over the life of the permit. A portion of the City’s treated wastewater is reused for cooling at the City’s McIntosh Power Plant pursuant to a permit from DEP under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The DEP permit, No. FL0039772 (Major), states in pertinent part: Industrial Reuse: Effluent is reused . . . as a non-contact cooling water at the City of Lakeland McIntosh Power Generating Plant. The volume of water used on a daily basis fluctuates on an as needed basis. There are no restrictions on the volume that can be routed to the reuse system. The power plant evaporates water in the cooling process or returns cooling water into the Glendale WWTP for final treatment in the manmade wetlands treatment system. The reuse in the power plant is not required as effluent disposal. . . . . The remainder of the City’s treated wastewater is “blended” with the water used at the power plant in order to meet the conductivity standards in the DEP permit and the conditions of certification for the power plant and/or directly discharged into an artificial wetland system that ultimately discharges to the Alafia River. Section 3.1 of the BOR (at page B3-2) provides that “Water Use Permittees within the SWUCA who generate treated domestic wastewater are encouraged to demonstrate that . . . 50% of the total annual effluent flows is beneficially reused.” (Emphasis supplied). The BOR lists a number of uses of treated wastewater that are considered to be beneficial reuse. The list includes “industrial uses for cooling water, process water and wash waters” and “environmental enhancement, including discharges to surface water to replace withdrawals.” The City’s use of treated wastewater for cooling at the McIntosh Power Plant is a beneficial reuse under the BOR. The treated wastewater directly discharged by the City into the artificial wetland system is not a beneficial reuse under the BOR because it is not replacing surface water withdrawals. The BOR requires all users within the SWUCA to investigate the feasibility of reuse, and requires the implementation of reuse “where economically, environmentally and technically feasible.” The City has not recently undertaken a study or otherwise evaluated the feasibility of increasing its reuse. The draft permit attached to the District's PRO includes a specific condition requiring the City to "provide a comprehensive study of reuse opportunities encompassing the [City's] water, wastewater, and electrical utilities systems" by January 1, 2009.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue WUP No. 2004912.006 with the terms and conditions contained in the draft permit attached to the District’s PRO, except that: The 2014 population referenced in the permit shall be 191,208; The adjusted gross per capita rate shall not exceed 150 gallons per day; Special Condition No. 2 shall be amended to authorize withdrawals from the NEWF at 4.0 mgd annual average and 4.8 mgd peak month, and the quantities listed in the Withdrawal Point Table for the NEWF wells shall be adjusted accordingly; Special Condition No. 4 shall be replaced with a reference to the EMMP and the conceptual WIP attached to the City’s PRO, and the list of monitoring stations in the EMMP shall be amended to include Lake Bonny and Lake Bonnet; and An additional specific condition shall be added encouraging the City to pursue a WUP for the Combee site for future water needs and/or for additional mitigation of the impacts of pumping at the NEWF. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 4th day of January, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a special tax district created by special act of the Florida Legislature. Chapter 71-822, Laws of Florida. The district covers approximately seventy-two square miles in northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County, Florida. Petitioner's purpose is to provide water, sewer, drainage and solid waste services within the district. In conformity with its powers, the Petitioner operates an advanced waste water treatment plant on property which it owns in northern Palm Beach County. Petitioner has secured appropriate permits from DER in order to construct and operate the treatment plant. The treatment plant is among the most advanced in southeastern Florida. It has a four million gallon daily capacity, which could be increased to an eight million gallon capacity. In treating waste water the plant utilizes filtration, disinfection, retention in a holding pond, and discharge into a remote off-site area. The present discharge system is to pump effluent from the retaining pond through a canal or drainage system to a recharge or discharge lake which is located approximately three miles north and west of the treatment plant. This is known as the western discharge system, and was installed at a cost of approximately one million dollars. Due to the large amounts of pumping activity, it is an expensive system to utilize. Through its instant application, the Petitioner is seeking a permit allowing it to discharge effluent on-site. Effluent would flow into percolation ponds that have already been constructed. Effluent would settle in the ponds, and eventually would percolate through the soil. This system would he less expensive to operate than the western discharge system. Petitioner is interested in experimenting with the amount of waste water treatment that can be obtained through action of vegetation in the percolation ponds upon the effluent. Such a natural system, if it operated effectively, could save the Petitioner additional money in treating waste water by reducing the need for chemical treatment. Petitioner's waste water treatment presently results in a discharge of effluent which within some parameters meets even drinking water standards. The Petitioner's system very effectively treats bio-chemical oxygen demand ("bod"), suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the effluent. Reports have been submitted by the Petitioner to DER which indicate that the system does not meet DER's standards for advanced waste water treatment. Samples upon which these reports were based were taken at a point in the system before the effluent was subjected to the action of the retention pond and the subsequent bumping into the western discharge system. Samples taken beyond the retention pond indicate that DER's standards are met for "bed", suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The Intervenor owns property adjacent to the Petitioner's waste water treatment plant. The Intervenor operates a well field and drinking water treatment plant on the property, and provides drinking water to residents of the Town of Jupiter and surrounding communities from the well field. The Intervenor acquired its treatment plant, and surrounding well fields from a private utility company. The Petitioner was aware of the well field when it purchased the property upon which it presently operates its waste water treatment plant. While the Petitioner's plant adequately treats waste water in terms of "bod", suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus it does not treat the waste water for heavy metals, pesticides, or viruses. These are common elements found in waste water effluent in the south Florida area. The Petitioner's proposal is to discharge its effluent into on-site ponds. The effluent would then percolate into the ground. The retention ponds are located at a distance from 1200 to 1600 feet from the nearest of the Intervenor's wells. Water which percolates from these ponds would flow directly toward the wells, and would eventually find its way into the wells. The flow from the retention ponds to the wells would be increased due to the draw-down effect that the wells have on the surrounding water table. As water is drawn from the wells, the adjoining water table becomes depressed in the area of the wells, and water from the surrounding area flows more rapidly into the area of the wells. Heavy metals will not be filtered out as a result of retention or percolation. Heavy metals in the effluent would eventually find their way into the Intervenor's well fields. Estimates as to the amount of time that it would take for water from the percolation ponds to reach the wells varied from four months to six years. The longer estimate appears the more reasonable; however, the evidence is conclusive that eventually waters from the percolation ponds would reach the wells, and that heavy metals in the water would not be filtered out. The Petitioner proposes to obviate any problems with heavy metals reaching the well fields by operating testing wells between the percolation ponds and the well fields. If any heavy metals were detected in the ground water, Petitioner would again use the western discharge system rather than the percolation ponds. While this would prevent increased contamination of the wells, contamination that had already reached the test wells would reach the Intervenor's wells. It was suggested that the percolation ponds could be drawn down in order to reverse the flow of ground water back into the percolation ponds, thence to be pumped through the western discharge system. In order to accomplish this, however, the percolation ponds would have to be more than forty feet deep, which they are not. The effect of heavy metals intruding into the Intervenor's water supply could be to increase the cost of treatment, or to render the wells unfit for use. Uncontaminated drinking water supplies are rare in the northern Palm Beach County area, and the expense of finding a new water supply is difficult to calculate.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to variances from the requirements of Rule 40D-0.27(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact William E. Klein (Petitioner) owns two water wells, both in Tampa, Florida. Each water well serves three rental units which are also owned by the Petitioner. One well is located at 302 East North Bay Street. The second well is located at 4113 North Suwanee Street. Each water well is classified as a "limited use community public water system" as defined by Rule 10D-4.024(13)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The wells have been in existence for perhaps as long as eighty years. As of January 1, 1993, limited use community public water system wells must obtain permits to operate. Permits are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The relevant permit requirements include water testing, submission of an application and a site plan, and payment of a fee. By February 23, 1996, the Department was aware of the Petitioner's wells and had provided notice of the permit requirements to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has met the water testing requirements, but has not submitted applications, site plans, or applicable fees related to these two wells. On May 30, 1996, the Petitioner filed applications for variances, seeks to be excused from submitting the applications, site plans and fees. On June 3, 1996, the Department denied the Petitioner's requests for variances. As grounds for the variance requests, the Petitioner cites financial hardship which will be imposed by payment of the fees. According to the stipulation filed by the parties, the application fee for each well is $110. Of the fee, $75 is retained by the state and $35 is retained by Hillsborough County, where the Petitioner's wells are located. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner is entitled to the requested variances. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of site plans. The Petitioner may prepare and submit site plans without assistance. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of a completed applications for permits. The evidence fails to establish that the total fee of $220 related to the issuance of well permits for six rental units will cause a financial hardship for the Petitioner. At most, the evidence indicates that the payment of the fee may reduce the Petitioner's profit from the rental units.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's requests for the variances at issue in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William E. Klein, Pro Se Thomas Lewis, Representative 8716 Ruth Place Tampa, Florida 33604 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614
