The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey Hill should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs, and should undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a community water system and its associated piping, designated PWS No. 2124409, located on parcel ID No. 03-4S-17-07486-001 on Country Club Road, in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida (“the property”). Respondent is a “person” as defined in section 403.852(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a “supplier of water” as defined in section 403.852(8). The water system is a “public water system” and a “community water system” as defined in sections 403.852(2) and (3), respectively. The community water system is a Category V, Class D water system with a capacity of 28,800 gallons per day that supplies between 25 and 3,300 people, using groundwater as its source. Count I Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for nitrate and nitrite in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count II Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for primary inorganic contaminants for the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count III Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to analyze for secondary contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IV Count IV of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for volatile organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count V Count V of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for synthetic organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VI Count VI of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for total coliform from June 2013 to date, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VII Count VII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to employ an operator for the system since May 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VIII Count VIII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to submit test results required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, and failure to file a monthly operation report since April 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IX Count IX of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to issue Tier 3 notices in May 2013 and March 2014, advising customers of the failure to monitor for certain contaminants, which Respondent admitted. Count X Count X of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to provide a consumer confidence report to his customers in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count XI In Count XI of the NOV, the Department states that it incurred $530 in investigative costs related to this enforcement matter, which is admitted by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner L. C. Prevatt is the owner and operator of the Riverview Speed Wash, Inc., a coin operated laundry which has been in existence for over ten years. The facility has twelve top load washers, four double load washers, one triple load washer and seven gas dryers. It is open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The facility is located in a shopping center in space which petitioner rents on a month-by-month basis. The facility utilizes a 0.0075 mgd waste treatment plant with effluent disposal to a county-owned drainage ditch which is connected and discharges to the Alafia River approximately 0.6 miles south of the facility. On or about May 29, 1981, petitioner submitted an application for a temporary operation permit for his Riverview laundry facility. Temporary operation permits are issued by the DER when a facility is not currently meeting State water quality standards and the applicant needs or desires a period of time to bring the facility up to the applicable standards. Here, the petitioner stated on his application that no upgrade of the waste treatment facility was planned. The application further stated that the facility would be connected to an area wide regional waste treatment system when that system became available. After numerous requests for further information from the applicant and various inspections of the facility, the DER issued its notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit. Reasons for the intended denial included failure to provide requested background water quality information, failure to provide a proposed water quality standards compliance schedule, failure to provide reasonable assurance that a municipal sewer would be available as an alternative means of disposal and improper and deficient operation and maintenance of the facility. Numerous inspections of the petitioner's facility by personnel from the DER and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission revealed that the facility was not functional in terms of operating correctly and that the design of the plant was inadequate to meet State water quality standards. Specifically, these inspections revealed that the chlorination equipment was not operational, that the trickling filter was not operational, that the removal rates for BOD and suspended solids were consistently and significantly less than the State standard of 90 percent, that the discharge and effluent were of a milky color and would not meet the State standards for turbidity and color, that the water quality of the drainage ditch was extremely low and that the water quality results were actually worse after going through the existing system. It was determined that the discharge was degrading the quality of the receiving waters and that, even if the petitioner's operational and maintenance problems were solved, the design of the facility is not adequate to assure future compliance with State standards. Petitioner admits that his facility does not currently meet State water quality standards. In mitigation, it is contended that many other laundries in the area also do not meet State standards, that it is not economically feasible to redesign the facility to attain compliance, that he has no land available upon which to discharge effluent and that he would be willing to install a sand filter and did have the permission of the manager (not the owner) of the property to discharge effluent into the parking lot drain ponds. No written evidence of this agreement was adduced and there was no demonstration that such runoff ponds would be able to hold and/or treat effluent from the petitioner's facility. There was also no evidence offered to demonstrate that a municipal or regional sewer system would be available in the near future to serve the laundry facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit for Riverview Speed Wash, Inc. be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: L. C. Prevatt Post Office Box 998 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 William W. Deane, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact The Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County, Florida, is an unincorporated neighborhood association begun in the Spring of 1978. It has been concerned with local sewage and flood water problems. Many of the Citizens' members live in the LiFair subdivision abutting the Fairfield Village project on the south. FFV is a 72-unit low income federally subsidized housing project planned for development on a 7.47 acre site. The site is located on the west side of Fairfield Drive between Jackson Street and the Lillian Highway (U.S. 98) in Escambia County. On February 1, 1980, DER issued permit number CS17-25848 for the construction of a dry sewage collection system to serve Fairfield Village. That permit contained conditions 15, 16 and 17 which state: This permit does not authorize the connection of this collection to the Avondale STP. Separate authorization for the actual connection of this col- lection system to the Avondale STP is required from this department. Such authorization shall be applied for by separate letter to the Department. This permit shall not be construed to infer any assurance that the necessary authorization for connection shall be granted. Any such authorization shall be granted only when adequate treatment in accordance with rules, regulations, and issued permits of the Department is available for any flows transported by by the collection system. The system shall be inspected for any sediment debris and flushed prior to connection to the Escambia County sewer system. Subsequently on March 20, 1980, Paul F. McCartney on behalf of FFV requested that the above conditions be lifted as the moratorium on new connections to the ATP had been lifted. On January 1, 1980, C. H. Wigley, Jr., Director of Utilities for Escambia County gave notice that the two-year moratorium on new sewer taps into the ATP was lifted. This action was the result of a planned diversion of approximately 300,000 gallons per day (GPD) from the ATP to the Warrington Treatment Plant. DER on April 1, 1980, gave notice of its intent to remove conditions 15, 16 and 17 from FFV's permit. Petitioner on April 9, 1980, filed its petition for an administrative hearing on DER's proposed action. The anticipated waste water discharge from FFV is approximately 22,000 GPD. As a result of the 300,000 GPD diversion from the ATP to the Warrington Plant, there is more than adequate treatment capacity at the ATP for handling the FFV inflow. The ATP operates under DER permit number TP17-2080 issued on April 4, 1978 and has operated within its designed capabilities of 1,000,000 GPD since August, 1979. There is no showing that a connection of the FFV transmission line to the ATP will cause any violation of the plant's permit conditions. Evidence was presented by Petitioners that sewage lines in the Citizen's neighborhood frequently overflow. There was no showing however that any instance of overflow was caused by the ATP exceeding its operating capacity. It is more likely that their neighborhood sewage problems result from blockages in the transmission lines or result from pump-outages at the lift station between their neighborhood and the treatment plant. No showing was made that the connection of FFV to the ATP would adversely affect sewage collection in the LiFair subdivision. The monthly operating reports submitted to DER by the ATP were shown to be accurate. DER may reasonably rely on them in determining whether the requested permit modifications should be granted.
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 authorizing the modification of permit number CS17-25848 by eliminating conditions 15, 16 and 17. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Petition of the Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County, Florida, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this day of 18th of December, 1980. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Artice L. McGraw, Esq. CETTI & McGRAW 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 P. Michael Patterson, Esq. 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 William W. Deane, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Alan C. Sheppard, Esq. EMMANUEL SHEPPARD & CONDON Seventh Floor, Century Bank Tower Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, FL 32596
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether proposed rules 62-40.410(3) and 62-40.474, in whole or in part, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2005).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties AFCD is a non-profit association representing 52 companies, including land developers, property owners, and other professionals involved in the planning, design, licensing, construction, and marketing of master-planned communities with multiple land uses, including residential uses, throughout the State of Florida. AFCD was established for the purpose of advancing the commercial and residential land development projects of its members, including informing state government policy makers and regulators about current issues affecting the community development industry. FHBA is a trade association working to promote and protect Florida’s residential construction industry. FHBA’s activities on behalf of its members include monitoring public policy and working with state agencies on environmental and land use regulations affecting the residential construction industry. The Environmental Groups are not-for-profit corporations whose principle activities include advocacy for the protection of Florida's fish and wildlife. They have thousands of members who live near and use Florida waters for recreational, educational and other purposes. SFWMD and SJRWMD are regional agencies that are authorized by statute to make water reservations within their respective jurisdictions. Any rule they adopt to create a water reservation will be subject to review by DEP to determine whether it is consistent with the proposed rule. The Proposed Rules On December 20, 2002, DEP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the F.A.W. for various provisions of the WRIR. Notices of changes were also published in the F.A.W. on February 21, 2003, August 15, 2003, and February 27, 2004. The version of the rules at issue in this case was published in the August 15, 2003, issue of the F.A.W. DEP held nine rule development workshops around the State and one public rule adoption hearing for the proposed rules. DEP solicited comments from the public and stakeholders, including local governments, regional water supply authorities, water utility organizations and water management districts throughout the rulemaking process. Proposed rule 62-40.474 provides as follows: The governing board or the department, by rule, may reserve water from use by permit applicants, pursuant to section 373.223(4), F.S., in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review at least every five years, and revised if necessary in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Reservations may be used for the protection of fish and wildlife to: Aid in a recovery or prevention strategy for a water resource with an established minimum flow or level; Aid in the restoration of natural systems which provide fish and wildlife habitat; Protect flows or levels that support fish and wildlife before harm occurs; Protect fish and wildlife within an Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve, a state park, or other publicly owned conservation land with significant ecological value; or Prevent withdrawals in any other circumstance required to protect fish and wildlife. Reservations may be used for the protection of public health and safety to: Prevent sinkhole formation; Prevent or decrease saltwater intrusion; Prevent the movement or withdrawal of groundwater pollutants; or Prevent withdrawals in any other circumstance required to protect public health and safety. Reservations shall, to the extent practical, clearly describe the location, quantity, timing, and distribution of the water reserved. Reservations can be adopted prospectively for water quantities anticipated to be made available. When water is reserved prospectively, the reservation rule shall state when the quantities are anticipated to become available and how the reserved quantities will be adjusted if the actual water made available is different than the quantity anticipated. The District shall conduct an independent scientific peer review of all scientific or technical data, methodologies, and models, including all scientific and technical assumptions employed in each model, used to establish a reservation if the District determines such a review is needed. As part of its determination of the necessity of conducting a peer review, the District shall consider whether a substantially affected person has requested such a review. Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 403.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.023, 373.026, 373.036(1)(d), 373.042, 373.046, 373.103, 373.106, 373.171, 373.175, 373.1961, 373.223, 373.246, 373.418, 373.451, 373.453, 403.0891, FS. History - New The proposed change to rule 62-40.410(3), indicated by underscoring, provides: Water may be reserved from permit use in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as is required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health or safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal users of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Reservations shall be established in accordance with section 62-40.474, F.A.C. Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.036(1)(d), 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.023, 373.026, 373.036(1)(d), 373.042, 373.0421, 373.103, 373.171, 373.175, 373.1961, 373.223, 373.233, 373.246, 373.250, 403.064, 403.0891, FS. History -- New 7-20-95, Amended. The validity of the proposed change to rule 62-40.410(3) is derivative of, and dependent on, the validity of proposed rule 62-40.474. Therefore, the discussion that follows will focus on proposed rule 62-40.474, and references to "the proposed rule" will mean rule 62-40.474. Water Reservations Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The governing board or the department, by regulation, may reserve from use by permit applicants, water in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review and revision in the light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Water reservations are important for what they enable--the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety, but they are also important for what they preclude-- use of the reserved water by any water use permit applicant. DEP does not believe the challenged rule is necessary to enable the water management districts to make reservations of water. DEP's purpose in enacting the rule is to provide goals, objectives, and guidance to the water management districts regarding water reservations. The proposed rule is intended to provide examples of "the types of situations that may be appropriate for the use of reservations." The proposed rule does not establish a water reservation. Each reservation of water must be accomplished through the adoption of a rule by a water management district or by DEP. There has been only one water reservation ever made pursuant to Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. It was made by SJRWMD in 1994 and is codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.302: The Governing Board finds that reserving a certain portion of the surface water flow through Prairie Creek and Camps Canal south of Newnans Lake in Alachua County, Florida, is necessary in order to protect the fish and wildlife which utilize the Paynes Prairie State Preserve, in Alachua County, Florida. The Board therefore reserves from use by permit applicants that portion of surface water flow in Prairie Creek and Camps Canal that drains by gravity through an existing multiple culvert structure into Paynes Prairie. This reservation is for an average flow of 35 cubic feet per second (23 million gallons per day) representing approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the calculated historic flow of surface water through Paynes Creek and Camps Canal. Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, was part of the original Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 ("the 1972 Act"). Ch. 72-299, § 3, Laws of Fla. The wording of the subsection is unchanged since its enactment in 1972. Much of the 1972 Act was derived, verbatim, from A Model Water Code, drafted at the University of Florida College of Law between 1967 and 1971 by Dean Frank Maloney, Professor Richard Ausness, and Professor J. Scott Morris. Maloney, et al., A Model Water Code, Univ. of Fla. Press (1971). However, the Legislature did not adopt the exact wording of the water reservation provision that was offered in A Model Water Code. In A Model Water Code, water was to be reserved when "required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan." Id. at 21, 181. The State Water Plan was composed of a State Water Use Plan and a State Water Quality Plan. Id. at 9. The following commentary accompanied the water reservation provision in A Model Water Code: This provision is designed to integrate the operation of the permit system with the State Water Use Plan and State Water Quality Plan. Under this subsection, the governing board by regulation may set aside a fixed quantity of water; no future permit application can be made for water reserved in this fashion. [This provision] would be of particular value in connection with the maintenance of water quality standards, as it would provide a margin of safety during periods of low flow. Id. at 181. The State Water Plan was to address many subjects, including minimum flows and levels, water supply development, water quality improvement, environmental protection, conservation and recreation. By providing that water could be reserved when "required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan," A Model Water Code contemplated that water could be reserved to address any of these subjects. Although the 1972 Legislature provided for a comprehensive plan similar to the State Water Plan, it did not make reference to the plan in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes (1972). The reason the Legislature chose not to use the wording "when required to implement a provision of the State Water Plan" in A Model Water Code but, instead chose to use "when required to protect fish and wildlife or the public health and safety" in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, is not explained in any exhibit in the record or in any primary or secondary source cited in the briefs of the parties. It remains a matter of speculation. Petitioners believe that it is clear from the Legislature's choice of words that it intended to strictly limit the circumstances in which a reservation would be used. Petitioners believe that other, more specific findings about what the 1972 Legislature would have considered an inappropriate use of a water reservation can be inferred from the Legislature's decision not to use the wording proposed in A Model Water Code. After considerable thought and review of the commentary in A Model Water Code and the provisions of the 1972 Act, it is concluded that there is an insufficient basis to make findings of fact regarding the 1972 Legislature's intent in not using the exact wording from A Model Water Code in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' theory of the Legislature's intent is plausible, but is not the only plausible theory. The only certainty is that, from the alternatives considered by the 1972 Legislature, it chose to express the purposes for which water can be reserved as "protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety." There are three other references in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to water reservations. None were a part of the 1972 Act. Section 373.0361(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes, directs that water reservations be taken into account in proposals for alternative water supply projects. Section 373.0361(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires regional water supply plans of the water management districts to include a listing of "Reservations adopted by rule pursuant to s. 373.223(4) within each planning region." Section 373.470(3)(c), Florida Statutes, refers to the use of water reservations in conjunction with restoration of the Everglades. Much of the argument and testimony in this case addressed Petitioners' contention that the proposed rule's provision for the use of water reservations "to aid in the restoration of natural systems" went far beyond "protection of fish and wildlife," the purpose stated in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes. References were made to the dictionary definitions of "protection" and "restoration" and all the expert witnesses offered opinions about their meanings. The term "protection" is not defined in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or in any DEP rule. The dictionary meaning of "protect" is to shield or defend against danger or injury; to cover or shield something from exposure, injury or destruction; to maintain the status or integrity of something; to guard. "Protection" is the act of protecting or the state of being protected. See, e.g., The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 803 (1988); Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 938 10th Ed. (1996). DEP does not interpret the phrase "protection of fish and wildlife" in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, as limited to keeping alive only those specific fish and wildlife organisms existing at the time a water reservation is established. DEP witness Janet Llewellyn testified that DEP has consistently interpreted this phrase to mean ensuring a healthy and sustainable, native fish and wildlife community; one that can remain healthy and viable through natural cycles of drought, flood, and population variation. Petitioners' experts did not dispute DEP's interpretation of "protection of fish and wildlife" to include the concepts of "native" species and species "communities." Petitioners contend, however, that the statute should be interpreted to apply only to existing, native fish and wildlife communities. The term "restore" is not defined in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or in any DEP rule. The dictionary meaning of "restore" is to put back or bring back into an original or former state or condition. "Restoration" is the act of restoring or the condition of being restored. See, e.g., The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 834 (1988); Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 998 10th Ed. (1996). DEP intends the word "restoration," as used in the proposed rule, to have its common meaning. All the experts who testified in this case acknowledged that "protection" and "restoration" are different concepts and they each articulated an understanding of the meaning of these terms that was consistent with the dictionary meanings of the terms. The experts differed, however, in how they applied the terms "protection" and "restoration" to examples of environmental improvement activities. In general, Petitioners' experts thought a relatively clear line could be drawn between protection and restoration activities. The experts presented by DEP and Audubon, on the other hand, stated that the concepts are often overlapping and are not mutually exclusive. Petitioners' experts believe that when a project will have results that include more than maintenance of the current state, such as increasing numbers of organisms, increasing diversity, increasing habitat, or improving water quality, then the activity is no longer "protection," and becomes "restoration." In contrast, the DEP and Audubon experts believe that environmental conditions must sometimes be restored in order to protect existing fish and wildlife. DEP agrees that protection is not the same thing as restoration. It is DEP's position that the proposed rule cannot authorize, for example, the reservation of water for restoration of habitat or ground or surface water levels, except to the "extent needed for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety." DEP agrees that a water reservation cannot be used "merely because restoration is desired." Ms. Llewellyn explained further: When a water management district initiates rulemaking to adopt a reservation, if the reservation is in aid of any restoration, the district will have to show that the aid to such restoration is no more than necessary to protect fish and wildlife or public health and safety. Ms. Llewellyn gave examples of how a reservation could be properly used as part of a restoration project to protect fish and wildlife. She stated that an estuary that previously supported a healthy population of oysters could be adversely affected by reduced inflows of fresh water due to diversions of water from the drainage basin which have increased the salinity of the water in the estuary. The water management district might construct a reservoir to store water in the rainy season for release in the dry season to keep salinities in the estuary at the proper level to protect the health of oysters. In this example, it is inferred that Ms. Llewellyn intended to convey that the release of reservoir water in the dry season would constitute restoration of a previously existing volume of freshwater inflow to the estuary, or restoration of the salinity level that would exist if the diversions had not occurred. The more persuasive evidence in the record supports a finding that, in the context of the comprehensive water resources program established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, protection and restoration are not mutually exclusive terms and it is possible to take action that meets the dictionary definition of restoration, but which does no more than protect (ensure the health and sustainability of) existing fish and wildlife communities. A restoration project could go beyond "protection" of fish and wildlife if, rather than merely restoring an environmental condition required for the health and sustainability of existing fish and wildlife communities, the project resulted in significantly larger fish and wildlife communities. Whether water reserved to restore an environmental condition is required for the protection of fish and wildlife depends on the particular circumstances involved.
The Issue Whether the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District's applications for construction of wastewater collection and transmission systems, specifically, Permit Numbers CS50-298013, CS50-301197, and CS50-305990, should be granted by the Palm Beach County Health Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Palm Beach County Health Department (Health Department) was delegated the authority by the Department of Environmental Protection to review applications and issue permits for wastewater collection and transmission systems pursuant to the Specific Operating Agreement for Delegation of Wastewater Program Authority From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The argument specifically referenced Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the successor to Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, which is Title 62. Respondent, Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (ENCON), is a water control district. Petitioner, Village of Tequesta (Tequesta), is a municipal corporation. Petitioner Bermuda Terrace & Pinetree Drive Concerned Citizens (Concerned Citizens) is a coalition of homeowners of record owning property in Bermuda Terrace and on Pinetree Drive. On December 17, 1996, the Health Department issued Permit No. CS50-298013 to ENCON for installation of sewers in Bermuda Terrace and Pinetree Drive. On March 27, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-301197 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Country Club Point and Anchorage Point. On June 24, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-305990 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Tequesta Country Club. Currently the wastewater in the areas for which the sewers are proposed to be installed flows into septic tank systems. There are 835 homes on the Tequesta Peninsula that would be hooking up to the proposed sewer system. The Health Department created a review form for internal use in reviewing applications for sewage collection permits. The Sewage Collection Checklist contains the statutory and administrative rule requirements for permitting sewage collection and transmission systems. The applications submitted by ENCON were reviewed using the review form. All three applications met the criteria contained in the applicable statutes and rules. 11. Robert Mitchell, who supervises the permitting for wastewater collection systems for the Health Department, opined that the permit applications provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the sewage system would not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. A sewage collection system does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed and functioning according to the technical requirements of the administrative rules, does not cause pollution. Thus, the applications compliance with the technical compliance with Rules 62-604.400 and 62-604.300, Florida Administrative Code, is reasonable assurance that the proposed systems will not cause pollution. 12 The proposed permits contain the following specific condition: Prior to construction, all required permits or approvals must be obtained for all aspects of the project from the appropriate agencies. Any dewatering required by the construction of the wastewater collection/transmission system will have to meet the permitting criteria for that particular activity, which comes under the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District and not the Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Permit Nos. CS50-301197, CS50-305990, and CS50-298013 to ENCON for construction of sewer systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Victoria Coleman, Esquire District 9 Legal Office Department of Health Post Office Box 29 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Scott G. Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 Timothy W. Gaskill, Esquire Curtis L. Shenkman, Esquire DeSantis, Gaskill, Smith & Shenkman, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan was adopted on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 11, 1989. In 2000, the County amended its Plan by establishing a Managed Growth Tier System, which includes five classifications of land (Urban/ Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades), along with three classes of service areas within the County to guide delivery of public services: Urban Area, Limited Urban Service Area, and Rural Service Area (RSA). It also assigned different levels of service for potable water and wastewater for each service area. At the same time, the County amended its FLUE to add a new Policy 3.4-c, which provides as follows: The County shall neither provide nor subsidize the provision of centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the Rural Service Area, unless urban levels of service are required to correct an existing problem, prevent a projected public health hazard or prevent significant environmental degradation, or the areas meet the criteria described in Future Land Use Policy 3.4.b. The County intended Policy 3.4-c to implement the Managed Growth Tier System by limiting the provision of centralized utility service in the Rural Tier. The effect of this new policy was to prohibit the County from providing urban levels of utility services outside its existing service area boundaries in the RSA unless necessary to correct or prevent a public health hazard, existing problem related to urban levels of service, or environmental degradation. In February or March 2003, the County Planning Department began assessing ways to address the problem of overlapping utility service in the RSA. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature passed the Scripps Law (Chapter 2003- 420, Laws of Florida), which took effect on November 3, 2003. Both of these factors led to the development of the Amendments in issue here. In late 2003, the County staff began the actual development of new amendments to its Plan (also known as Round 04-1 Plan Amendments) that would allow the County to provide services into the RSA. More specifically, the staff proposed to add a new FLUE Policy 3.1, which (as finally drafted) read as follows: The Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall provide potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater service to all unincorporated areas of the County except those unincorporated areas where the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners has entered or enters into a written agreement that provides utility service area rights to a public or privately owned potable water, reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility, or in areas where the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department is specifically excluded from providing utility service by Florida law. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall continue to provide utility services to incorporated areas where service is already being provided by the County, or as provided for under utility service area agreements or as allowed for by law. In general terms, the new policy designated the County as a service provider of water and wastewater services for unincorporated areas of the County where the County has, or will enter into, interlocal agreements except where excluded by interlocal agreement or by law. The effect of the amendment is to allow the County to extend potable water and wastewater services to unincorporated areas of the County, particularly "the western communities," where it currently does not do so. The County staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c, described in Finding of Fact 1, which was previously adopted in 2000. Finally, the County staff proposed to delete another policy adopted in 2000, CAI Policy 1.5-c, which read as follows: Urban levels of service shall not be provided by any governmental entity (outside of its existing service area boundary) within the Rural Service Area of the unincorporated area, except where: The Rural Service Area receives urban services pursuant to Objective 1.1 in the Element, or An urban level of service is required to correct a demonstrated public health, or Development on a parcel in the Rural Tier that is adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 shall be allowed to connect to those existing lines and shall be allowed to connect to public sewer and/or water when required by the Public Health Department. This policy shall not allow the extension of new water and/or sewer lines into the Rural Tier to serve development without first amending the Service Area Map and the Future Land Use Atlas to reflect a change in the service area boundary. By deleting these two provisions, the County would no longer be prevented from providing utility services in the RSA unless certain conditions were met. (The staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 1.4-k, but that deletion is not in issue in these proceedings.) On January 14, 2004, the County initiated the adoption process by transmitting Notice of the Amendments to the Intergovernmental Plan and Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), which is made up of all the local governments and special districts in the County, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. IPARC acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC in turn distributed the notice to its members, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. After a public hearing on March 12, 2004, before the County's Local Planning Agency (known as the Land Use Advisory Board), by an 11-0 vote it recommended denial of Round 04-1 Plan Amendments and recommended that the County meet with the affected parties to resolve problems voiced by various attendees, including the City, SID, and ITID. On April 2, 2004, the County held a meeting with interested persons in an attempt to resolve objections to the Amendments before they were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The objections were not resolved. On April 5, 2004, by a 5-0 vote, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the Amendments to the Department, other commenting agencies, and each unit of local government or governmental agency that had filed a written request for copies of the Amendments. The Amendments were transmitted to the Department on April 15, 2004. Between January 2004 and August 2004, the County held at least 37 meetings with utilities and other interested persons to discuss the Amendments, including three meetings with the City, at least five meetings with SID, at least ten meetings with ITID, and at least two meetings with Wellington. In addition, the County invited all utilities to attend meetings on April 28, 2004, at three locations to discuss utility service area boundaries. These meetings were attended by approximately 25 different utilities, including the City, SID, ITID, and Wellington. As a result of these meetings, the County prepared and distributed utility service area maps in an attempt to demonstrate the necessity for better coordination between utilities. On May 21, 2004, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council notified the County of no objection or comments regarding the Amendments. On June 19, 2004, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which did not identify any objections, recommendations, or comments with respect to the Amendments. On June 22, 2004, the South Florida Water Management District (District) notified the Department of no objections or comments regarding the Amendments. After a public meeting on August 24, 2004, by a 5-1 vote, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2004-26 enacting the Amendments, and they were transmitted to the Department on September 14, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the Department issued its Notice determining the Amendments were in compliance. On November 19, 2004, Petitioners (except Wellington) filed Petitions challenging the Amendments. Wellington filed its Amended Petition on December 16, 2004. The Parties and Their Standing The City is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County, operating its own water and wastewater utility system. The City owns the largest water treatment plant in the County and has an extensive wastewater treatment system, including partial ownership in the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facilty, the largest wastewater plant in the County. It owns property and currently provides bulk service to entities located within the unincorporated area of the County, including ITID. It submitted written objections to the County during the adoption process and has standing to bring this action. SID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1970. It lies within the unincorporated area of the County and has the authority to provide water and wastewater service within and without its boundaries. At present, SID provides potable water service within and without its boundaries, but only provides wastewater service within its boundaries. SID owns property in the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. These facts establish that SID has standing as an affected person to challenge the Amendments. Callery-Judge is a limited partnership, which owns and operates citrus groves on property located within the unincorporated area. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. Callery-Judge is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. Mr. Roberts owns property in the unincorporated area, including Callery-Judge, of which he is the General Manager. He submitted objections to the Amendments during the adoption process and is an affected person. ITID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957. (In 2002, the Legislature amended and reenacted ITID's enabling legislation.) In 1998, ITID began operating a water and wastewater system within the unincorporated area. ITID does not generate its own potable water or treat its wastewater. It obtains bulk water from the City and SID and bulk wastewater service from the City. ITID owns property within the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, it is an affected person within the meaning of the law. Wellington is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County and operates a utility providing water and wastewater service within its boundaries and outside to several developments. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption of the Amendments. Because Wellington does not own property or operate a business within the unincorporated area of the County, in order to demonstrate standing, it must show that the Amendments will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within its jurisdiction. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Wellington bases its standing on alleged increases in traffic and the use of parks within its boundaries, which purportedly will occur as a result of the Amendments. While Wellington could not give a precise amount (in terms of dollars) of those impacts, the testimony of its Director of Community Services established that the availability of centralized water and sewer services in the areas adjoining Wellington will arguably lead to higher density development patterns, which in turn will lead to an increased need for publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Wellington is an affected person and has standing to challenge the Amendments. The Department is the state planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing and approving comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, including the Amendments. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 people, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. The Current Plan As noted above, the County initially adopted its current Plan on August 31, 1989, by Ordinance No. 89-17. The Plan has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption. The original 1989 Plan and all subsequent amendments up to the ones at issue in this proceeding have been found in compliance by the Department. The current Plan is made up of sixteen elements, nine of which are mandatory, and seven of which are optional. The parties have indicated that the Utilities Element, CIE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and FLUE are relevant to this controversy; therefore, a brief description of their content and purpose is necessary. The purpose of a Utilities Element is to provide necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element contains potable water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste sub- elements. The aquifer recharge sub-element is found in the Coastal Management Element. The Utilities Element and the aquifer recharge sub-element of the Coastal Management Element constitute the "general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element" referenced in Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element has been found in compliance with applicable provisions of statute and rule. Section 163.3177(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.016 contain requirements for the capital improvements element of a comprehensive plan. The existing CIE complies with these requirements. Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7-a describe how the County implements the CIE. Pursuant to these requirements, the CIE is updated annually at the same time as the County budget. Table 10 of the CIE reflects the water utilities revenue and expenditures for the then current budget year and five years into the future. Table 10 was not updated when the Amendments were adopted because any future changes to the County's capital expenditures resulting from the Amendments would be made through the annual budget update process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains provisions encouraging coordination between the County and adjoining municipalities and special districts in order to more efficiently meet the needs of the County residents. (There are more than 25 municipalities and special districts within the County.) This Element has previously been found in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. One of the coordination tools identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is the IPARC, described in Finding of Fact 5, which acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC distributes notice of plan amendments to all members, who then have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed action. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006 contain requirements for the future land use element of a comprehensive plan, including the future land use map (FLUM). According to the Plan, the FLUE "is the nucleus of the . . . Plan" and "defines the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships between land use and all of the other elements of the Plan that address the physical, social, and economic needs of the people who live, work, and visit Palm Beach County." Both the existing FLUE and the current FLUM have been found in compliance. The Amendments do not alter the FLUM, but they do change FLUE Policy 3.1-c and delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c. As noted above, in 2000 the County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System, which is a planning tool intended to manage growth and protect varying lifestyles in the County. The Managed Growth Tier System consists of five categories or tiers, which are described in Objective 1.1 of the Plan. Objectives 1.2 through 1.6 govern development within the five tiers. FLUE Table 2.1-1 establishes permitted densities for each of the tiers. The Amendments do not modify any Goals, Objectives, or Policies governing the five tiers, with the exception of FLUE Policy 1.4-k. However, Petitioners have not challenged the proposed deletion of FLUE Policy 1.4-k and it is not one of the Amendments at issue in this proceeding. Additionally, the Amendments will not alter the permitted densities for any of the tiers. Concurrency Management refers to the system adopted in the CIE to ensure that infrastructure, which meets or exceeds the established minimum level of service standards, is in place concurrent with development approval. According to FLUE Policy 3.5-a, development orders and permits shall not be approved unless services and facilities meet or exceed the minimum levels of service. FLUE Objective 3.1 establishes three graduated service areas in Palm Beach County -- the Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas. Each service area corresponds to one or more of the five tiers. The minimum levels of service required for each area are listed in FLUE Table 3.1-1. According to FLUE Table 3.1-1, FLUE Policy 3.5-a, and Utilities Element Policies 1.2-g and 1.3-e, the minimum levels of service in the RSA for potable water and sewage are on-site wells and septic tanks, respectively. With the exception of water and sewer, the other minimum levels of service are the same for all three service areas. The Amendments do not alter the minimum levels of service for any service area. Through its planning expert, Wellington contended that the Amendments will cause a de facto change to the minimum levels of service. However, the extension of centralized water and sewer service into the RSA does not change the established minimum levels of service. Petitioners also argue that the Amendments will increase minimum levels of service in the RSA for traffic and parks. However, the minimum levels established in FLUE Table 3.1-1 for all services and facilities, other than potable water and sanitary service, are County-wide standards. Reasons for Adopting the Plan Amendments Policy 3.4-c did not have its intended effect because it prevented the County from providing service to the Rural Tier. After 2000, repeated efforts by the County to negotiate the service areas of the numerous entities operating utility services in the unincorporated area were unsuccessful. Indeed, "there was not a willingness of many utility providers to agree on anything." This created a lack of coordination and planning as to the provision of services in the Rural Tier. The City, SID, and ITID each have utility service areas which overlap the service area of other utility providers. In particular, portions of the Acreage, a community located in the central-western unincorporated area of the County, fall under the claimed utility jurisdiction of SID, ITID, Cypress Grove Community Development District, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Royal Palm Beach). The City is also rapidly expanding service in the unincorporated area by entering into bulk water service agreements with a number of utilities located in the Rural Tier, including Royal Palm Beach, Seacoast Utilities Authority, and ITID. The City intends further expansion of bulk service in the Rural Tier, so as to increase utility revenues. It views the Amendments as affecting its substantial interests by potentially limiting these revenues. Royal Palm Beach claims an exclusive utility service area which overlaps the utility service areas claimed by SID and ITID. Royal Palm Beach is located entirely within the legislative boundaries of ITID and claims all of ITID as its service area. The Amendments support the authority granted to the County by the Scripps Law. That law gives the County the exclusive right to provide water and wastewater service to the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility and to construct utility facilities within and without the boundaries of the Scripps project. The enactment of the Scripps Law reinforced the need for the Amendments, as the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility will be located in the unincorporated area. Existing FLUE Policy 3.4-c is arguably inconsistent with the Scripps Law because it prevents the County from providing utility service in the RSA. Since the Scripps Law supersedes all other contrary provisions of Florida Law, it logically follows that FLUE Policy 3.4-c should be repealed. The Amendments are also supported by the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances Sections 27-16 through 27-22, which codify County ordinances that were adopted in the 1970s and deal with utility service. These ordinances authorize the County to designate a Control Area in the unincorporated area and to require County approval of any water and wastewater facilities constructed in these areas. In summary, the County adopted the Amendments to avoid service area disputes between utility providers such as those described above, to prevent wasteful and duplicative utility services, to implement the Legislature’s mandate regarding the Scripps Biotechnology Park, to ensure a sufficient water supply to meet the reasonable development needs of the unincorporated area, and to enforce the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances. Petitioners' Objections Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the only data and analyses submitted by the County to support the Amendments are contained in a rather brief County Staff Report (Petitioners' Exhibit 5), and that no other documentation was actually forwarded to the Department. They further contend that the Amendments must be based on demographic, economic, and fiscal studies, and that none were utilized by the County. Because of these omissions, they argue that the Amendments violate relevant statute and rule provisions and are not in compliance. Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) require that plan amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element. In determining whether a plan amendment complies with this requirement, the Department reviews each amendment on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it does not require the same amount or type of data for all plan amendments. See, e.g., Zemel et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case No. 90-7793 (DOAH Dec. 16, 1992, DCA June 22, 1993)(projections of aquifer thickness and transmissivity do not require the same precision as calculating volume-to- capacity ratios for levels of service on road segments); 1000 Friends of Florida et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM, 2005 WL 995004 at *15 (DOAH April 28, 2005, DCA May 9, 2005)("a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal- based and aspirational"). For example, if amendments merely represent a policy or directional change and depend on future activities and assessments (i.e., further analyses and decision-making by the local government), the Department does not require the degree of data and analyses that other amendments require. (These amendments have sometimes been referred to as aspirational amendments. See Collier County v. City of Naples et al., DOAH Case No. 04-1048GM, 2004 WL 1909265 at *5 and *6 (DOAH Aug. 24, 2004, DCA Dec. 28, 2004)). Conversely, amendments which are mandatory in nature, that is, amendments which are required to be implemented by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, require more data and analyses. Thus, under Department interpretations of the relevant statutory and rule provisions, if an amendment does not have an immediate impact on the provision of services in the unincorporated area, is policy- based, does not require any capital improvement expenditures at the time the amendment is adopted, and simply represents a directional change in the County's long-term water utility planning, it is similar to an aspirational amendment and can be based on less data and analyses than might otherwise be required. Here, the County’s actual policy regarding utility service areas will depend on future activities and assessments. The Amendments do not require the County to take any immediate action. The Amendments do not mandate that existing utility customers in the RSA switch to the County. The Amendments do not authorize any new development in the Rural Tier, and any future development would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the normal development approval process. Therefore, the Amendments are akin to an aspirational amendment and do not require the degree of data and analyses that are required for other amendments. The County Staff Report identifies, albeit in brief fashion, data and analyses in support of the Amendments. It provides, among other things, that the Amendments are necessary because "[t]he lack of County participation as a service provider has created a void in effective long-term utility planning, resulting in duplicative service lines, inefficient services in the RSA, overlapping utility jurisdictions and, absence of some written agreements defining service areas." The Staff Report further identifies the County’s authority to provide service and the necessity for the Amendments to allow the County to provide service to the Biotechnology Research Park in northwest Palm Beach County. In addition, a number of documents presented at hearing provide data and analyses in support of the Amendments. In considering these documents, the undersigned notes that all data or analysis available and existing at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment may be relied upon to support an amendment in a de novo proceeding and may be raised or discussed for the first time at the administrative hearing. Zemel, supra; McSherry et al. v. Alachua County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM, 2004 WL 2368828 at *54 (DOAH Oct. 18, 2004, DCA May 2, 2005); Melzer et al. v. Martin County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 02-1014GM and 02-1015GM, 2003 WL 2150756 at *33 (DOAH July 1, 2003, DCA Sept. 26, 2003 and Oct. 24, 2003). The District's Districtwide Water Supply Assessment identifies future potable water demands for various utilities in the County. The District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan describes the available raw water supply to meet future demands in the County. The District's CUP-CERP (Consumptive Use Permit-Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Guiding Principles lists interim water use permitting guidelines, which indicate utilities may experience problems obtaining permitted allocations beyond what is needed to meet their 2005 demands. District Water Use Permit 50- 00135-W is the County's 20-year water use permit, which confirms that the County is the only utility in the unincorporated area with a guaranteed, long-term potable water allocation. The information contained in these documents confirms the County's ability to act as the default water utility provider in the unincorporated area. The County Linking Land Use and Water Supply Plan, Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan, Raw Water Master Plan, 20-Year Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and Projected Yearly Capital Expenditures each provide data and analysis, which support the County's ability to serve as the default utility provider in the unincorporated area. As a water management district study, the District's documents are professionally accepted sources, which constitute appropriate data and analyses under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c). Similarly, the County's reports constitute existing technical studies, which are also appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners contend that the County was required to collect new data and prepare a comparative analysis of the County Water Utilities Department and other utility providers in the unincorporated area. However, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b), local governments are not required to collect new data in support of a plan amendment. Further, neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) nor Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires a comparative analysis. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments are supported by relevant and adequate data and analyses. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioners also contend that in order to comply with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan, the County must inventory and analyze the facilities and services provided by other utility providers in the areas affected by the Amendments. In other words, they contend that without data and analysis relative to other providers, the coordination function is incapable of being done and is meaningless and renders the Amendments inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. (That rule sets forth in detail the data requirements upon which the element in a local government's comprehensive plan must be based, and the goal statements, specific objectives, and policies which must be found in the element.) Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 set forth requirements for the intergovernmental coordination element of a comprehensive plan. The existing Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been found to be in compliance. The Amendments do not modify this element. Although not required for purposes of compliance, the County followed intergovernmental coordination procedures in the comprehensive plan when adopting the Amendments. The Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by member governments prior to their consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The County met with other utility providers and interested persons no less than 37 times to discuss the Amendments. Further, Petitioners' own witnesses concede that their representatives attended multiple meetings with the County regarding the Amendments. Such efforts demonstrate that the County substantively complied with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners' contention that these meetings were not conducted in good faith has been rejected. Petitioners implicitly suggest that intergovernmental coordination means acquiescing to the position of an objector. If this were true, adjacent local governments would have veto power over the County's ability to enact plan amendments, a result not contemplated by the statute. The intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 do not require that local governments resolve all disputes regarding a comprehensive plan and its amendments to the satisfaction of all interested persons, but only that the local government take into consideration input from interested persons. See, e.g., Department of Community Affairs et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-1843GM and 90-7792GM, 1990 WL 749359 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1993, Admin. Comm. Feb. 10, 1994). The numerous meetings held by the County demonstrate adequate consideration of opposing views. It is at least fairly debatable that the County satisfied the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. Economic Feasibility/Comparative Analysis Petitioners argue that the Amendments fail to comply with Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible." Petitioners claim that in order to establish economic feasibility, the County first should have conducted a comparative economic analysis of the cost of utility service in the unincorporated area by various existing and hypothetical service providers. However, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Department's interpretation. The Department does not interpret the economic feasibility requirement of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, as requiring such a comparison. Instead, it construes the statute as only requiring that a plan amendment be realizable in financial terms, that is, that the local government has the financial ability to achieve what is specified in the amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 5182GM, 1995 WL 1052797 *6 (DOAH April 19, 1995, Admin. Comm. Sept. 4, 1998)("Economic feasibility means plans should be realizable in financial terms."). Compare Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District et al. v. Charlotte County et al., 774 So. 2d 903, 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the Court interpreted the use of the term "economically feasible" in a proposed Basis of Review provision as meaning "financially feasible or financially 'doable' . . . [and the] financial ability of a WUP applicant to institute reuse." The Department's interpretation of the statute was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. The evidence shows that the Amendments are financially realizable. The County Water Utilities Department is one of the financially strongest utilities in the nation. It has the highest municipal bond rating (AAA) granted by the three major rating agencies. As of August 24, 2004, no other utility in the State of Florida had achieved an AAA rating from the three bond rating agencies, and the County Water Utilities Department is among only a handful of utilities nationwide to have achieved that status. Petitioners have acknowledged that the County is a very strong utility from a financial perspective. Given the County's strong financial state, it is qualified and able to serve as the default provider in the unincorporated area. In summary, it is fairly debatable that the Amendments are economically feasible as the term is used in Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, because the County has the financial ability to extend utility service to the unincorporated area. Urban sprawl Wellington (but not the other Petitioners) essentially contends that the Amendments will promote urban sprawl because the County will now allow new urban services (water and wastewater) into undeveloped areas thereby resulting in urban development. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5) contains standards discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Existing provisions in the Plan, including the Managed Growth Tier System, prevent urban sprawl within the County. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) provides in part that "if a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find that plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction." The Amendments do not affect existing growth management provisions in the Plan and thus will not exacerbate urban sprawl. Although not required, the amendment of FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which Petitioners did not challenge, will also have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to urban sprawl. At the same time, the Amendments do not directly or indirectly authorize new development and are only aspirational in nature. Any extension of water and sewer lines into the unincorporated area does not necessarily create urban sprawl because development is not automatically authorized by these activities. Even Wellington's planning expert concurred that urban sprawl is not caused by the provision of utility services, but by the Board of County Commissioners' approval of development orders. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments will not encourage urban sprawl in contravention of the Plan.2 Internal consistency Petitioners next contend that the Amendments fail to comply with Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(10)(a), and 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which require that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. In addressing this objection, only those inconsistencies expressly alleged in their Petitions and Amended Petition will be considered. See, e.g., Heartland Environmental Council v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 WL 1059751 at *19 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996). Future Land Use Element Petitioners first contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1, and Policies 3.1-a and 3.1-b of the FLUE. These provisions require that the County "define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner"; that the County establish graduated service areas "to distinguish the levels and types of services needed within a Tier, consistent with the characteristics of the Tier," which include "the need to provide cost effective services"; that the County establish Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas based on several factors in Table 3.1.1, including "[t]he cost and feasibility of extending services"; and that the County review minimum levels of service "during preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] and the Comprehensive Plan as amended." The latter provision also requires that each service provider determine the maximum and available capacity of their facilities and services for this review. The first broad goal is implemented through the County's existing Managed Growth Tier System and is not affected by the identity of the utility provider. Also, the Amendments do not alter the Managed Growth Tier System, nor do they alter the existing minimum levels of service required for the RSA. Similarly, FLUE Objective 3.1 is not affected, as the Amendments only have the potential to change the utility provider in certain areas, and not the level of service provided within the RSA. Further, the Amendments do not change the existing service area boundaries and established service area definitions. As to Policy 3.1-a, the service areas have been established and found in compliance and the Amendments do not alter the service area designations or Table 3.1-1. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 3.1-a. Finally, Policy 3.1-b is not affected by the Amendments because the minimum levels of service are not altered and the Amendments are not the product of an EAR. Capital Improvements Element – Table 10 Table 10 of the CIE describes water and sewer revenues, operating revenues, federal/state grants, other revenues, bond/ loan proceeds, fund balances, total water and sewer revenues, water and sewer operating expenditures, water and sewer capital projects, annual surplus/deficit, and cumulative surplus/deficit for fiscal years 2004-2009. Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with this provision because the Table has not been amended to reflect the expenditures that will be made by the County as a result of the Amendments. This Table is not affected because the Amendments do not require any changes to the County's capital expenditures. If changes do occur as a result of the County's planned extension of utility service into the unincorporated area, the capital improvements associated with extension of service will be addressed in subsequent annual updates of Table 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 1 and Objective 1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which require the County to "provide a continuous coordination effort with all affected governmental entities" and to "utilize existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts with the plans of school boards, other units of local government providing services, adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, the State, and residents of Palm Beach County." Petitioners essentially claim that the Amendments were adopted and transmitted without coordination with other local governments, as required by the goal and policy. As explained above, the evidence shows that the Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by each of the local governments and special districts located in the County, these entities were given ample opportunity to comment or object to the Amendments, and the County utilized existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with these portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners also contend that the Amendments conflict with Goal 4, Policy 4.1-a, and Policy 4.1-b of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The broad goal relates to coordination of "service provision to assure the most effective and efficient service delivery for the residents of Palm Beach County and its municipalities," while the two policies require that the County coordinate with special taxing districts and each municipality within the County during "the concurrency management and development review processes" and in defining the "ultimate boundaries of that entity's sewer and water service areas." The Amendments are consistent with the goal because their purpose is to create more effective and efficient service delivery by encouraging utility providers to enter into agreements which establish exclusive service areas and eliminate overlapping service areas. For similar reasons, the Amendments are consistent with Policy 4.1-a because the County coordinated with each of the special taxing districts through IPARC and numerous subsequent meetings relating to the Amendments. Finally, the main purpose of the Amendments is to prevent overlapping utility service areas and to encourage utility providers to enter into agreements defining service areas. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 4.1- b. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Plan Petitioners next allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 8.1, Regional Strategy 8.1.1, and Regional Policies 8.1.1.3 and 8.1.1.4 of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan (Regional Policy Plan). In order for a plan amendment to be consistent with a regional policy plan, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that plan amendments be consistent with the regional plan "as a whole," and that no specific goal or policy be "applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans." Because the Petitions and Amended Petition do not allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan as a whole, their challenge must necessarily fail. See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra at *38. Even if a provision in the Regional Policy Plan could be viewed in isolation, the Amendments are consistent with Regional Goal Regional Goal 8.1, which requires "public facilities which provide a high quality of life." Nothing in the Amendments would impair the provision of a high quality of life. One of the purposes of the Amendment is to more efficiently provide utility service by defining service areas and improving the provision of services. Regional Strategy 8.1.1 relates to the provision of "levels of public service necessary to achieve a high quality of life cost-effectively." The Amendments are not inconsistent with this strategy, as they are designed to help the County implement the existing objectives and policies relating to this strategy. The purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.3 is to "encourage patterns of development which minimize the public cost of providing service, maximize use of existing service systems and facilities and take into full consideration environmental/ physical limitations." As stated above, one purpose of the Amendments is to provide more efficient and cost-effective utility service by encouraging providers to enter into agreements that prevent overlapping service areas and avoid duplication of services. Finally, the purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.4 is to "develop local Capital Improvement Programs which maximize development of existing systems before allocating funds to support new public facilities in undeveloped areas." Because the Amendments do not alter the County's Capital Improvement Programs, they do not implicate this policy. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners further allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Like regional policy plans, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that for purposes of determining consistency, the state plan is to be construed as a whole, with no specific goal or policy applied in isolation from the other goals and policies. If a plan appears to violate a provision of the state plan, a balanced consideration must be given to all other provisions of both the state and local plan to determine whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with the state plan. Petitioners have not alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as a whole. Therefore, their challenge to the Amendments must necessarily fail. See 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra; Heartland Environmental Council, supra. Assuming that a provision within the state comprehensive plan can be viewed alone, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Petitioners contend that because the Amendments fail to protect the public facilities that already exist in the unincorporated area of the County, the Amendments conflict with this goal. The Amendments are not inconsistent with this goal because their purpose is to implement the Plan provisions in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(17)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioners also allege that the Amendments contradict the requirements of Section 187.201(20)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with cooperation between levels of government, elimination of needless duplication, and promotion of cooperation. Again, the purpose of the Amendments is to eliminate duplication and promote cooperation between entities by encouraging utility providers to enter into interlocal agreements with the County that define exclusive service areas and prevent duplication of services. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes. Other Objections Finally, any other contentions raised in the Petitions and Amended Petition not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is a department of the County government. On or about January 18, 1989, a site evaluation for the County's application, on behalf of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, for an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) at Vandenberg Airport was conducted. A soil profile was prepared showing brown sand from the ground surface down 14 inches, a gray sand down another 2 inches, and a gray clay from 16 inches to 7 feet below the surface. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Survey Book classifies the soils found at Vandenberg Airport as Manatee fine sandy loam, which is now called Chobee 10, and characterizes its permeability as "severe" with a seasonal high water table of from 0 inches at ground surface to 10 inches below the ground surface. By letter dated April 13, 1989, the Department formally denied the County's application due to the poor texture of the Chobee 10 soil and high water table found in the site evaluation, as well as the zoning of the property. This denial letter recognized the applicant's right to apply for a variance. Since the County anticipated denial of its application due to verbal indications from Departmental representatives, the County filed an application for variance with the Department on or about March 29, 1989. A Variance Review Board met and considered the County's variance application, and then recommended approval. However, the variance application was denied by the Department on June 1, 1989, due to the nature of the activities to be conducted on the site, as well as the severe soil conditions on site. The denial of the County's variance request effectively denied its application for this permit. The County has timely sought this review of the Department's denial of its application for a permit for a septic tank and drainfield system at Vandenberg Airport for use by the Sheriff's Department. The parties stipulated that the County's application included the redesign plans and report of its consulting engineers. They further stipulated that the location for which this permit is sought is imperative to the duties of the Sheriff's Department, and there is no alternative to this location without greatly increasing the response time of the Sheriff's Department to emergencies and other calls for service. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department has been operating its aviation unit out of a hangar at Vandenberg Airport for several years, and in March, 1989, the County entered into a ten year lease with the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for approximately 103,126 square feet of land (2.37 acres) located at the Vandenberg Airport for a new hangar for storage and maintenance of aircraft used in conjunction with the services provided by the Sheriff's aviation unit. The site was formerly used for three residences which were served by septic tanks. This lease specifically provides that the County is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and for securing necessary utility services for the use of this Sheriff's hangar. Thus, the Aviation Authority is not responsible for providing sewage treatment facilities for this site. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority is not a unit within Hillsborough County government, but is an independent entity established by Special Act. The County has no control or authority over the Aviation Authority's creation of development plans, but the County may approve or disapprove these plans after they have been created by the Aviation Authority and submitted to the County. The Authority's development plans for expansion of Vandenberg Airport provide for runway expansion, taxiways, aprons and parking for aircraft and hangar expansion. As part of this expansion, the Aviation Authority has removed 51 individual septic tanks from homes located on lands which have been acquired, and which now comprise part of Vandenberg Airport. There is no record of any problems with the three residential septic tanks formerly located on this site for 25 to 30 years. The Aviation Authority's plans do not include construction of a sewage treatment plant or providing sewage treatment services in any manner other than with septic tanks, the permits for which must be obtained by its lessees. No centralized wastewater service is available to the proposed Sheriff's hangar at the Vandenberg Airport, and the closest sewer main will be more than 10,000 feet away upon its completion in 1990. The County's five year capital improvement plan does not include extension of this sewer line to the Airport. The location for the Sheriff's hangar is currently zoned SPI-AP-V, which is a special airport district zoning classification created in September, 1989, for Vandenberg Airport. In this zoning district, manufacturing, processing and assembly activities are prohibited. Retail activities are also prohibited, as well as hotels, motels, repair services, physician and dental offices, bus and train terminals, lumberyards, warehouses, publishing and printing, and rental and leasing activities. This district is to be used for public use facilities, wastewater treatment plants and lift stations, aircraft landing fields, airport and airport related activities. "Airport" activities are defined to include fuel storage and transmission facilities, hangars, aircraft service, repair and maintenance facilities. "Airport related" activities are defined as: Uses which are dependent upon proximity to the airport for effective performance, or which provide services to the airport..., including but not limited to airport maintenance facilities and associated administrative offices; sales of new and used aircraft and aircraft parts; sales of aircraft fuels, lubricants, and other aircraft supplies; ... and other airport-related uses compatible with the operation of airports for public and private use. Based upon five soil borings taken at the boundaries of, as well as within, the proposed hangar site, Darrell Hanecki, a geotechnical engineer who was accepted as an expert in engineering, found that the groundwater table was 3 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface in October and November, 1988. The seasonal high groundwater table was estimated to be approximately 12 inches above the existing ground water table at that time, but significant fluctuations in the groundwater level were anticipated due to seasonal variations in rainfall, runoff, and other site specific factors. The borings upon which Hanecki's findings are based were performed in general compliance with accepted procedures for standard field penetration tests. Hanecki concluded that the soil conditions are suitable for the proposed hangar if constructed on a shallow footing foundation with special site preparations. William Fernandez, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering, developed a redesign of the County's septic tank and drainfield in support of its variance request in order to address concerns expressed by the Department's representatives concerning soil conditions on site. It is proposed that the septic tank and drainfield site will be excavated to a depth of 6 feet, and all clays will be removed. The site will then be backfilled with clean materials in order to allow the drainfield to percolate through these clean materials from three mounded drains which will be located in a two foot high mound constructed above the original grade. A pump will be used to lift the effluent from the tank to the drainfield. The septic tank will have a 750 gallon capacity. It is projected that 8 people will use this septic tank each day, and that each person will cause 25 gallons of sewage per day to be deposited in the system, or a total of 160 gallons of sewage per day. Only domestic wastes from the hangar restrooms will go into the system. Oils, greases and other substances used in aircraft maintenance and repair will be separated and carried to a retention pond through a system of trenches. After hearing the testimony of the County's expert witnesses about the surface water management system to be constructed on site, the Department's environmental specialist, Gary Schneider, testified that he was no longer as concerned about the possibility of oils, greases and other hazardous materials getting into the septic tank system. The County has also applied to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for a surface water management permit, and must receive that permit for this proposed hangar at Vandenberg Airport. The Department seeks to rebut the expert testimony offered by the county primarily with the testimony of Robert Blanco, supervisor of the county health department's septic tank permit program, who was neither tendered nor accepted as an expert, as well as a letter from Richard Ford, resource soil scientist with the Soil Conservation Service, dated September 18, 1989, who took one soil boring and concluded that the soil identified was poorly drained to very poorly drained Chobee loamy sand. Ford was not present to testify. Blanco agreed with Ford's conclusion, expressed in his letter, that the seasonal high water table on this site will come to the surface, or within 10 inches of the surface, for 2 to 6 months each year, causing ponding to occur. Based upon the demeanor and qualifications of the witnesses who testified at hearing, it is specifically found that the testimony offered in support of the County's application, and in particular the expert testimony of Hanecki and Fernandez, is more credible and is given greater weight than the testimony offered on behalf of the Department, particularly the testimony of Blanco. Blanco was not qualified or tendered as an expert in any field, and therefore, he was only competent to offer fact testimony. He speculated, without any supporting evidence in the record, that the septic tanks formerly on this site were not built to Code specifications and probably did not work, although there is no evidence of any complaints about these septic tanks during the 25 to 30 years they were in operation. Blanco also insisted that standardized texts describing soil types over large geographic areas are more reliable than actual soil borings on site, although he could not render an expert opinion in this regard. The letter from Ford offered by the Department was not supported by other competent, substantial, credible evidence, and in any event was based upon only one soil boring as opposed to five borings conducted by Hanecki in accordance with generally accepted practices. Therefore, it is found that the groundwater table on this site is 3 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface, and the seasonal high groundwater table is approximately 12 inches above the existing groundwater table, although it does fluctuate. It was undisputed at hearing that the soils on site are Chobee 10, which is poorly to very poorly drained soil, but the County's redesign of the proposed septic tank and drainfield reasonably and adequately accounts for, and accommodates, this condition by excavating to a depth of 6 feet and backfilling with clean materials, and by placing three drains in a mounded drainfield built two feet above the existing ground level. This redesign complies with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order granting the application of Hillsborough County for a permit for an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) for the Sheriff's Department hangar at Vandenberg Airport. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3776 Rulings on the County's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-7. Adopted in Findings 6, 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 9, 12. 12-13. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. Adopted in Findings 10, 12. Adopted in Findings 3, 5, 10. Adopted in Findings 3, 4. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 8. 3-4. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 11; Rejected in Finding 12. Rejected in Finding 12 as irrelevant and immaterial since the classification of the soils on site was not disputed at hearing. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Morrison, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
