Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1976, Respondent's territorial jurisdiction was expanded by transfer of substantial areas formerly regulated by other water management districts. The transfer was effected pursuant to legislative revision of Section 373.069, F.S., which delineates the geographic boundaries of Florida's water management districts. The following rule promulgated by Respondent became effective on January 31, 1977, and was amended on February 3, 1981: 40C-4.031 (previously 16I-4.04, Florida Administrative Code). Implementation. These regulations shall become effective February 1, 1981, throughout the District and will be implemented in those areas transferred to the St. Johns River Water Management District from the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District on the same date. Implementation in other areas will be effected pursuant to public hearing at subsequent dates determined by the Board. The regulations implemented by the above rule establish permitting procedures for projects which involve holding, diversion, or discharge of significant quantities of water. However, permits are required only in the transferred territory. Petitioner owns 11,500 acres located within the territory where permits are required. Petitioner seeks to improve his property for agricultural purposes, which involves the holding and diversion of surface waters. He has accepted Respondent's determination that his property is within the permitting area and has filed the requisite application. However, Petitioner contends that he is unable reasonably to confirm Respondent's determination that his property is situated in the regulated territory. Respondent demonstrated that a determination can be made by comparing the statutory descriptions of Respondent's jurisdiction prior to and after the transfer, and has maps available which reflect the permitting area. To accomplish this task independently requires knowledge of legal territorial descriptions (section, township, range) and a laborious comparison of legal descriptions set out in the 1975 and 1977 versions of the Florida Statutes. At the time reorganization of the water management districts became effective (December 31, 1976) , Respondent had limited regulatory capability. Its decision to implement permitting only in the transferred territory was based on this limited capability and the need to preserve continuity 1/ in areas where permits had previously been required. In the years following this decision, Respondent has continued to require permits only in those areas transferred in 1976. The evidence established that the boundary between the regulated and unregulated areas is one of convenience and has no hydrological or other scientific basis. Respondent is considering a revision of its rules to become effective sometime in 1982. This revision may enlarge the permitting territory and modify the criteria for grant or denial of permits. Petitioner asserts that his application is being evaluated by rules not yet adopted and fears that new standards may be applied after hearing on the application, which is now under consideration pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), F.S., (DOAH Case No. 81-1588). Hearing is scheduled for December, 1981. In support of this contention, Petitioner points to the technical staff report prepared in May, 1981, which recommends denial of the application giving, among others, the following reasons: Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of the Upper Basin Plan catalogue a history of a diminish- ing water resource in the upper basin. The water resources in the upper basin have been harmed and the proposed project aggravates the existing harm to the resource. Moreover the proposed project is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district for the upper basin. Resolutions 75-11 and 81-2, the 1977 Management Plan, and Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase I of the Upper Basin Plan indicate that the objectives of the District are to curtail inter-basin diversion and maintain and enhance, if possible, the existing hydro- logic regime in the upper basin. The pro- posed project is not in conformance with either of these statutory requirements. (Emphasis added.) An earlier technical staff report prepared in November, 1980, recommended grant of the application, with some modification. This report did not refer to inter-basin diversion.
Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact The Applicant/Respondents, Melvin and Mary Thayer have applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a "dredge and fill permit" seeking authorization to remove an existing 32-foot wooden fence and install in its place a chain-link fence, which as originally applied for would not extend more than 32 feet waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake as marked by the waterward end of the existing wooden fence. The fence proposed would be five feet high and would possess a gate at its landward end which would permit pedestrian passage in both directions around the near-shore area of the lake. The project site is located approximately 400 feet south of U.S. 441-192 and adjacent to Alligator Lake, lying one mile west from Bay Lake within Section 10, Township 26 South, Range 31 East in Osceola County, Florida. As clarified and amended prior to hearing, the application now requests the permit to authorize, instead, a 26-foot fence extending that distance waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes as well as Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the Department has jurisdiction of the permitting of the subject fence inasmuch as the fence would be constructed waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation or the "high pool" level of Alligator Lake in Class III waters of the state. Additionally, the area of the project waterward of the 64- foot mean sea level elevation lies on sovereign lands of the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. That Department, as yet, has not issued a permit for use of sovereign land for the intended purpose as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Ed Edmunson was tendered by both Respondents as an expert witness and was accepted as to his expertise in biological assessment of dredge and fill construction projects. It was thus established that the construction and installation of the fence and removal of the existing fence would cause no Class III water quality violations. Additionally, it was established that no navigational impediment would result from the fence as presently proposed which only involves a 26-foot fence extending from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation waterward in a perpendicular direction from the shore and near-shore of Alligator Lake. Parenthetically it should be noted that the original proposal involved extending the fence 32-feet waterward and then installing a right angle section parallel to the shoreline for an indeterminate distance. The right angle portion of the fence has been deleted from the permit application and the portion perpendicular to the shoreline has been amended from 32 feet down to 26 feet from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. In that connection, it was established by witness Walter, accepted as an expert in the field of engineering, that on January 7, 1985, the water line of Alligator Lake was at 62.4 feet mean sea level elevation and the end of the existing 32-foot wooden fence was 16 feet from the then existing waterline of the lake. If the water in the lake was at the 64 feet mean sea level elevation or "high pool" stage, which has occurred on the average of once every three years, the water at the end of the fence would still be only .9 feet in depth at the waterward extreme end of the proposed 26-foot fence. Indeed, it was established with- out contradiction by the Applicant, Melvin Thayer, that in the 17 or 18 years he has observed the project site, that only "seven or eight inches of water is the most depth he has seen at the end of the fence." Thus, the fence as proposed to be installed, will pose no impediment or hazard to the navigation of fishing boats, skiing boats or other craft, and, in that regard, a dock in close proximity to the site of the proposed fence extends approximately 90 feet waterward at the present time. In view of the Petitioner's other objection to the fence concerning their feared loss of access to walk around the near-shore area of the lake to visit friends and the like, the permit applicants have agreed to install a gate for public access anywhere specified by the Department along the extent of the proposed fence. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, including a representative of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, consists largely of objections to the precedent of permitting a private fence to be constructed in the waters of the state and on state water bodies, but no impediment to navigation has been established especially since the neighboring dock and numerous other docks around the shoreline of the lake extend waterward much farther than will the proposed fence. No degradation to water quality has been established to result from the proposed project. The fence has not been shown to be contrary to the public interest since it will not interfere with wildlife habitat or natural resources, nor impede navigation in any way, and was shown not to impede any public use of the lake or the near-shore area of the lake, in view of the access gate to be provided in the fence. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that all permitting criteria within the Department's jurisdiction at issue in this proceeding will be complied with, although a permit from the Department of Natural Resources authorizing use of the state lands involved has not been issued as yet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Melvin and Mary Thayer for authority to remove an existing fence and to install a fence extending 26 feet waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake with an attendant public access gate installed therein be GRANTED upon satisfaction of the above-stated condition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia M. Hoover, MSM Consultant 5366 East Space Coast Parkway St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Norman J. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 B. J. Owens, 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
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on April 13, 1970. He was appointed to the position of Superintendent of Petitioner's West Palm Beach Field Station in 1973, and continued in that position until March 9, 1983, when he was discharged. As Superintendent of the West Palm Beach Field Station, Respondent supervised approximately 80 maintenance operations and administrative employees. The facility is located adjacent to Petitioner's headquarters, and is somewhat larger in terms of employees than Petitioner's other field stations. Respondent was a generally capable and dedicated employee of Petitioner. However, his management style and personality were often irritating to his employees, coworkers and supervisors. The incident which precipitated his discharge involved the retirement of a valued employee who was supervised by Respondent. The employee informed Respondent's supervisor that one of the reasons for retirement was his difficulty in working for Respondent. Specifically, the retiring employee was embarrassed by Respondent's handling of a subordinate's failure to earn promotion. Respondent advised the employee in his subordinate supervisor's presence that he (Barnette) was ready to promote the employee, but that the subordinate supervisor was opposed. The cancellation of the promotion was unnecessarily dramatized by Petitioner dropping the promotion form in the wastebasket in the presence of the subordinate supervisor and the employee. The testimony of witnesses from the West Palm Beach Field Station established that the Respondent has a hot temper, and is subject to frequent temper outbursts. His radio room operator overheard Respondent yelling at people in his office through a closed door once every week to two weeks. Other witnesses also observed the Respondent engaged in loud arguments with his subordinates. Respondent admitted on cross-examination to having a temper, and did not deny that the incidents attested to by Petitioner's witnesses. Respondent's temper outbursts were unacceptable conduct, and Petitioner counseled Respondent regarding this deficiency in 1978 and periodically thereafter. The testimony of Mr. George Dupley, Supervising Professional Engineer, established that on several occasions Respondent refused to comply with design instructions from headquarters, which resulted in additional project cost to the District. His testimony also indicated Respondent had a generally uncooperative attitude, and that he was much less cooperative than other field station superintendents, with whom Mr. Dupley had no problem. Mr. Rob Baskin, Assistant Structure Maintenance Coordinator, was subjected to an incident where Respondent blew up at him in the presence of other employees and told him to leave the job, while he was attempting to carry out assigned duties. Dupley, Baskin and other headquarters staff personnel avoided dealing with Respondent whenever possible because of his hot temper and hostile attitude. Respondent's uncooperative attitude extended to the District's personnel office. Respondent generally disregarded the Petitioner's recruitment policy which required that no external applicant be interviewed or hired for an open position until internal employees had been interviewed. Respondent's refusal to comply with this policy created morale problems and prompted the filing of several employee grievances. Respondent was counseled on this problem in 1981. Respondent's disregard of personnel policy was most flagrant in his hiring of his niece's husband in 1982, after being advised by Petitioner's personnel office that such action would constitute a violation of its anti- nepotism policy. Respondent was disciplined for this infraction under Petitioner's "Corrective Action Policy" (discussed below), and assigned 25 points. This was a "category 2" offense for which the penalty was to remain in effect for six months. This disciplinary action would have expired March 14, 1983, five days after Respondent was discharged. In the nepotism memorandum, dated September 17, 1982, Respondent's supervisor also stated: [I]t has come to my attention from numerous sources that both employees and supervisors avoid discussions with you for fear of temper outbursts. You are attempting to maintain a one man iron rule at the station which is out of step with the District's management philosophy . . . Any future problems may require dismissal. Although Respondent never received an unsatisfactory merit review rating, his April 7, 1978, rating included the following observations: A negative form of reluctance is evident relative to meeting organizational and program objectives. There is too much disregard for certain headquarters expertise. As a superintendent improvement is mandatory. Decision-making on certain occasions appears tainted with prejudice against endeavors of well intentioned key staff members. Respondent's most recent merit review rating, dated October 21, 1982, included the following: The handling of matters which impact on board personnel must improve. Emphasis has been placed upon this issue in several previous evaluations, including the last two. Thus, Respondent had ample notice of his expected performance and the opportunity to correct his deficiencies. In addition to the above notices and meetings, Petitioner's efforts to upgrade Respondent's performance included his attendance at several management training seminars. After concluding that Respondent would have to be replaced, Petitioner considered demoting rather than discharging him. However, no suitable position was available. Petitioner's Corrective Action Policy (Respondent's Exhibit One, in evidence) sets forth expected standards of performance for all District personnel. Respondent is familiar with these standards, both as a supervisor and as an employee of Petitioner.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order discharging Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
