The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, should be issued water use permit 204387.03, to withdraw groundwater from the wells on its property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for the permitting of consumptive water use within its area of geographical jurisdiction. The Respondent, Hi Hat, is a family owned farming and ranching operation in eastern Sarasota County with water wells on its property. The Intervenor, City of Sarasota, is a municipality in Sarasota County which operates wells in the general area of those operated by Hi Hat, and which has an agreement with Hi Hat for the latter's use of treated wastewater pumped from the city's treatment plant to Hi Hat Ranch. The Petitioner, Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr., is a property owner and resident of Sarasota County whose property is located near the Hi Hat Ranch, and whose potable water is drawn from a well on his property which utilizes both the surficial and intermediate aquifers which are penetrated by the wells on Hi Hat Ranch. Hi Hat Ranch consists of 11,000 acres owned by Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, the family owned business which operates it, and an additional 3,227 acres leased from the City of Sarasota. Agricultural operations, including citrus farming, truck farming, sod farming, and grazing have been conducted on the ranch since the mid 1940's. In February, 1990, Hi Hat applied to the District for a permit to withdraw and use water from some 14 wells located on its property. It requested an annual average of 6,267,000 gallons per day, (gpd), and a peak monthly rate of 32, 668,000 gpd. Upon receipt by the District, the application was assigned a number, (204387.03), and was submitted for evaluation by the District staff for conformity with applicable District rules and policies. When the staff evaluation was completed, the District issued a staff report and proposed staff agency action in which it indicated its intention to issue a permit authorizing water to be drawn from the wells at a rate of 6,570,000 gpd, average annual, a peak monthly rate of 14,300,000 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 5,210,000 gpd. In conducting its evaluation, the District staff relied upon the District's Basis of Review For Water Use Permit Applications which contains within it the provision for use of a "water use model" in assessing the need and appropriateness of water withdrawal amounts. This model, known as the Blaney- Criddle Model considers numerous factors in the evaluation, including rainfall, soil characteristics, irrigation methods used, and proposed crop types, all in an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of the applicant's supplemental water needs. Hi Hat's application was evaluated primarily by Marie Jackson, a Hydrologist III employed by the District, and an expert in hydrology, who has, over the years, reviewed between 350 and 400 permit applications, of which approximately 90 percent have been for agriculture. She is, therefore, quite familiar with the specifics of agricultural water use needs. Her evaluation of Hi Hat's application was done in the same manner as the others she has done and utilized the same tests, measurements and factors for consideration in arriving at her conclusion. In its application, a renewal with modification sought to increase average annual quantities due to a change in crop plans, Hi Hat indicated that its criteria for water use was based on certain agricultural uses and application rates. These included: low volume under tree spray irrigation of 778 acres of citrus at an application rate of 17.2 inches/year plus one inch/year for frost and freeze protection. open ditch irrigation of 135 acres of sod at an application rate of 30 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 1,367 acres of improved pasture at an average application rate of 26.6 inches/year. overhead spray irrigation of 1,200 acres of improved pasture at an application rate of 20.3 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of spring peppers at an application rate of 30.0 inches/crop, and open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of fall peppers at an application rate of 45.2 inches/crop. Applicant also stipulated that the peak monthly quantities that it requested would be utilized for pasture, sod and citrus irrigation during the month of May. The proposed maximum quantities were for frost and freeze protection of citrus only. In January, 1989, Hi Hat entered into a contract with the City of Sarasota under which the City was obligated to deliver reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment plant to a "header" located on the ranch which thereafter distributes the water through pipes to "turnouts" located at various high points on the property. From these, the water is then discharged into a system of ridges and furrows for distribution of the water across the needed area. The reclaimed water is used to irrigate approximately 5,403 acres of ranchland. The Contract provides for minimum and maximum amounts of water to be delivered as well as for water quality standards which must be met. In periods of adequate rainfall, when irrigation is not required, any treated wastewater which is not needed is stored in a 185 million gallon holding pond on City property located adjacent to the ranch. When needed, water can be fed into the wastewater distribution system described above from the holding pond. This reclaimed water, whether from the pond or direct from the header, can also be utilized to irrigate citrus crops, but this requires a filter system which has not yet been able to operate properly. Therefore, no reclaimed water has yet to be utilized for citrus irrigation on the ranch. At an average annual flow of 6.2 million gallons per day, the pond has the capacity to hold enough treated water for almost 30 days. Not all wells on Hi Hat Ranch are active wells. Several of the wells are classified as standby wells which are intended to be used only to back up the reclaimed water delivery system and are located, normally, beside the "turnouts." In the event the reclaimed water is not available from the city, the standby wells can be utilized to provide water to the ridge and furrow system used to irrigate pasture land. The standby wells are numbers 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Well number 5, also identified as a standby well in the staff report and in the draft permit was mistakenly so identified. The draft permit contains several special conditions which impact on the drawing of water under the terms of the permit. Significant among these is Special Condition 33 which prohibits the withdrawal of water from any of the standby wells unless the reclaimed water supply from the city is interrupted. Special Condition 27 requires the installation of a flow meter on any standby well that becomes active as a result of permanent discontinuance of the reclaimed water supply. With regard to flow meters, Special Condition 22 requires flow meters on all of Hi Hat's wells. Ms. Jackson, however, indicated this was in error and has recommended that the standby wells be deleted from that Special Condition. When that is done, only those wells actively producing water on a regular basis would require the installation of flow meters. In its analysis of the application for permit, the District staff considered several factors pertinent to the impact the well would have on the water supply in the area and its effect on other users. These factors include hydrologic impacts, well condition, the history of water use at the ranch, the reliability of the reclaimed water system and its ability to provide a uniform source, and the city's water reuse policy. Addressing each individually, and starting with the hydrologic impact of the withdrawal of the requested amounts, the District considered the nature of the existing wells and how they are constructed and maintained. The District assumed, because the data regarding the construction of the existing wells was incomplete and insufficient to properly disclose the status of casing on each well, that they were shallow cased. As a result, the calculations incorporating this assumption indicate a situation that would occur in its most aggravated form. The parties agreed that Hi Hat's wells are shallow cased and probably go no deeper than 90 feet. To determine, as much as possible, the projected drawdowns in the surficial and intermediate aquifers that might be expected if Hi Hat withdrew the amounts of water proposed, the District utilized the "MODFLOW" computer model which factors in simultaneous peak withdrawals from all 14 of the wells along with a 90 day no rainfall drought condition. This, too, contributes to a worst case scenario, and the resultant figures are considered to be conservative estimates of the hydrologic impact of the water withdrawal. Notwithstanding, the application of this computer model resulted in the indication that, as to the surficial aquifer, the drawdown at Mr. Bishop's property located approximately one half mile from the ranch border, would be no more than .055 feet. Since normal fluctuations in the surficial aquifer during the course of the year can be as much as 6 feet, the projected drawdown as a result of Hi Hat's withdrawals was considered insignificant. Applying the same assumptions and utilizing the same computer model as it relates to the intermediate aquifer resulted in an indication of a drawdown of no more than 2.3 feet at Mr. Bishop's property. Since annual fluctuation in the intermediate aquifer can range from 15 to 20 feet normally, the District considers that any reduction of less than five feet in the intermediate aquifer is insignificant. The permit held by Hi hat currently allows for the withdrawal of more water than would be withdrawn under the proposed permit as conditioned and is consistent with the proposed reduction in allowable withdrawals. Considering that factor, as well as the prohibition against withdrawals from standby wells as long as reclaimed water is available, the actual impact of the water withdrawals consistent with the proposed permit would be substantially less than the computed prediction which includes production from all wells. Drawdown contours are defined across the entire effected area. One of the levels is a 4 foot contour, and when a computer simulation indicates that the 4 foot contour includes a withdrawal previously or otherwise permitted, the District will generally conduct a cumulative impact analysis. In this case, however, since there was only one golf course well within the area circumscribed by the 4 foot contour line, and since this withdrawal was too small to have effected an evaluation, it was not done. The condition of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch has some bearing on whether or not the application for additional withdrawal of water should be granted. These wells are almost 30 years old, having been drilled in the 1960's. As a result, there is little information available regarding their construction detail. This is not necessarily unusual for agricultural wells, and there is evidence that there are many similar wells in use within the District. The reason for this is that at the time the wells were drilled, information regarding their depth, casing and other matters were not required to be kept or reported. However, there is no indication the wells are in any way violative of well construction criteria and their use has been authorized continuously since 1977. When he prepared Hi Hat's application, Mr. Turner included much the same information regarding the wells as pertains as to depth and diameter which he had previously submitted in earlier applications and which had been accepted. In each case, casing depths had been reported as unknown. Notwithstanding the information contained in some old well logs relative to only a few of Hi Hat's wells, this information is in no way definitive and it is difficult to describe anything specific with the majority of these wells. Nonetheless, as already found, it is stipulated that most are approximately 90 feet deep. It is reasonable to assume that the existing wells, however, are cased only to a shallow depth, and that in many cases, the existing casings have corroded away, either totally or in part. This can cause an intermixing of water from the separate aquifers, but whether this is in fact happening depends upon factors specific to that particular well. Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that as a result of the condition of Hi Hat's wells, any degradation is occurring in the more potable, surficial aquifer as a result of intermixing with water from the intermediate aquifer on or around the Hi Hat Ranch. In Ms. Jackson's opinion, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict it, the amount of drawdown which would occur as a result of maximum pumping at Hi Hat Ranch would not be sufficient to cause poorer quality water from the Floridan aquifer to percolate upward (upcone) into the better quality water of the two upper aquifers even during drought conditions. By the same token, there is no evidence that drawdown would encourage or permit salt water intrusion. Petitioner attempted to show by the records kept on the various Hi Hat wells that many of them have been abandoned and are no longer operative and should not be allowed to fall within the parameters of this permit. He testified clearly that over the years, the level of water in his potable water well has lowered and presumed that this was the result of increased water usage by other entities which draw from the aquifer into which his well is sunk. Water level, however, depends upon numerous factors, of which usage is only one. Others include recharging of the aquifer and the amount of rainfall and other recharge sources not only in the immediate area but across the large area which feeds the aquifer. Mr. Bishop did not present any evidence showing a causal connection between the lowering of the water in his well, or the degradation in water quality he claims to have experienced, and either the drawdown caused by Hi Hat's operation or by aquifer intermixing. He indicated, and it is not disputed, that within the past year, he has had to take measures to improve the water quality in his potable well, but, again, he has not presented any evidence to show this was caused by Hi Hat's ground water withdrawals. In its long range planning, the District intends to implement a program to rehabilitate old wells, and when that program is implemented, almost every agricultural well within the District may require recasing or redrilling. This program will not be implemented for several years, however. In an effort, however, to insure that all reasonable precautions are taken to see that approval of any petition for withdrawal does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water needs of the surrounding community, in its analysis of this application, and in all cases, the District makes certain assumptions when adequate empirical data is not available. In this case, pertaining to the unavailability of information regarding Hi Hat's wells, the District assumed that all wells were shallow cased, and this placed the application in the worst possible light. Shallow cased wells allow more upconing and aquifer intermixing. Nonetheless, the amount of water permitted to Hi Hat, even if not used, could impact on Mr. Bishop and other adjoining owner's use of additional water as a result of a possible change to their permitted quantities. However, to compensate for this, the District has also included a special condition, (#26), which requires Hi Hat to log all 14 of its wells within the term of the permit, (7 years), which will require at least 2 wells be done each year. The cost of that action will be between $800 and $2500 per well. Another condition, (#31), requires Hi Hat to look into any complaint from adjacent property owners regarding adverse impacts due to water withdrawal, to report the results of its inquiry to the District, and to mitigate, as much as possible, all adverse impacts due to its withdrawal. Mr. Bishop claimed, and introduced evidence purporting to demonstrate, that many of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch, which are covered by the permit applied for here, are no longer in use and have been abandoned. In response, Mr. Turner, who has been actively engaged in the ranch's operations for at least the past four years, indicates from his personal knowledge, that all 14 wells included in the permit applied for have been operated within the past two years, and all are capable of producing water. It is so found. Not all wells, however, have been operated at all times. Crop rotation and a varying need for groundwater has resulted in some wells not being used at some times. This is, of course, commonplace in agriculture and to be expected as a result of crop planning programs. Admittedly, an accurate figure for the amount of water which has been withdrawn from the 14 wells cannot be established because these wells do not have, and were not required to have, flow meters. Two of the wells were fitted with hour meters in January, 1989, but because the capacity of the pumps on those wells is variable, a precise estimate of volume pumped cannot be determined. The meters measured only the number of hours the pumps were in operation and not the amount of water passed through the pumps. Evidence was presented, however, to show that wells have been utilized at the ranch since the 1960's, and in 1977, some 14 years ago, following District implementation of a consumptive water use permit program, the ranch first applied for water withdrawal permits. These permits have been renewed as required and all water usage since the implementation of the program has been permitted. Turning to the reclaimed water supply, the delivery system, incorporating a program to pump reclaimed water from the treatment plant all the way back out to the ranch site, is subject to material failure and operator error, and either one can occur at any number of places along the system route. Each could result in interruption of the delivery of the reclaimed water to the ranch. The system is far more complex than would be the use of on-site wells for delivery of ground water. One two week shutdown in the system was occasioned by a major pipe failure as a result of pressure building up in the pipes. Were it not for the fact that a contractor was already at the ranch with replacement parts on hand to effect expeditious repair of the system, the shutdown could have lasted considerably longer than it did. This is not the only interruption, however. Several main line leaks and valve problems have caused the system to be shut down on several occasions for short periods of time. The filter system required for the water destined for the citrus area is problematical, and so far this area of the ranch has not received any reclaimed water in the 10 months the system has been in operation. Mr. Bishop argues that the wet weather holding pond is a solution to the reliability problems with the pipe line, but the pond has had problems of its own. Sand in the water, which comes from the holding pond, has been the primary difficulty in the filter system for the citrus area, and algae growth in that pond has the potential to create other filter problems. Delivery of the water from the pond is not accomplished by a gravity system, but instead, requires the use of pumps powered by an electric motor. In the event of a power failure, this source would be unavailable. Discounting all of the above, however, and assuming, arguendo, that all systems were in top operating condition, the fact remains that the delivery system from the pond to the distribution system is not adequate to supply the amount of water that would be necessary to have an effective freeze protection program. In any case, the reclaimed water supply is not the panacea for all water shortage problems experienced at Hi Hat Ranch. In the first place, the quality of the reclaimed water is generally lower than that of the groundwater which would come from wells on the ranch. Also, the City's treatment process does not remove from the water all the pollutants that are of concern to the farm operators. For one thing, total dissolved solids in the reclaimed water are considerably higher than in the ground water, and high dissolved solid levels can be harmful to citrus crops. In fact, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommends that citrus irrigation water not exceed total dissolved solid ranges of from 1000 to 1500 milligrams per liter, (mpl). Testing done on the reclaimed water delivered to Hi Hat Ranch showed it averaged between 1200 and 1500 mpl. Though within recommended parameters, it was toward the high end. Further, reclaimed water is not totally interchangeable with ground water for all agricultural purposes. It cannot, by law, be applied to certain types of ground crops such as melons, nor can it be used for overhead citrus irrigation. There is also a restriction on the use of reclaimed water for pastures on which dairy cattle will be grazed. This all results in a restriction on the options available to the farmer who chooses to use reclaimed water in his irrigation plan. As a result, many farmers try not to use reclaimed water if they have access to adequate amounts of groundwater from on- site wells. Notwithstanding all the above, the parties agree that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposed is in the public interest. The District encourages it but nonetheless concedes that even with the availability of reclaimed water, a farmer should have access to wells on his property, in a standby capacity, as an alternative source of water to support his farming activities. Not only that, the agreement between the City and Hi Hat provides for Hi Hat to maintain its water use permit even while receiving reclaimed water from the City. Hi Hat is not the only farm operation with whom the City has negotiated in a effort to expand its wastewater distribution program. It has found in those negotiations, that most farm producers are not willing to rely totally on reclaimed water for all their irrigation needs, and it has concluded that were it mandatory that a farmer give up his on-site ground water withdrawals in order to utilize reclaimed water for a part of his needs, most would be reluctant to use it at all. This would seriously interfere with the City's ability to dispose of its surplus reclaimed water consistent with its policy. Even though Hi Hat's property lies within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Cautionary Area, the rule pertaining thereto is inapplicable to Hi Hat because Hi Hat filed its application for permit, which was deemed complete, prior to the adoption of the rule. Nonetheless, water use officials agree that the proposed permit is consistent with the rule emphasis on the use and reuse of reclaimed water, and the District does not object to backup wells being permitted as supportive of the District's desire to keep ground water within the ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Hi Hat Cattle and Grove be issued water use permit No. 204387.03, within the limits of the authorized quantities as indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein; except that the permit be amended to show well No. 5 as a non-standby well, and to delete standby wells from the terms and requirements of Special Condition 22. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. She testified that Condition 28 of the permit provides this. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 36. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence except that the method permitted was the method being used. - 40. Accepted. Ms. Jackson indicated she "assumed" some wells were drilled into the Florida aquifer. Rejected. Accepted as qualified by the comment, "depending on the respective potentiometric heads." - 47. Accepted. Accepted but incomplete. This is because they did not feel it was necessary under the circumstances. - 51. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Redundant. - 61. Accepted. - 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. More a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein. & 71. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 74. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second portion rejected since cited case involves active wells versus standby, as here. The comparison made is accepted. The conclusion drawn as to validity is rejected. & 79. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, & 45. Accepted. 46. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Bram D.E. Canter, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara B. Levin, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether proposed Water Use Permits Nos. 20012236.000 (the Potable Water Permit) and 20012239.000 (the Irrigation Permit) and proposed Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001 (the ERP) should be issued by the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The individual Petitioners, Farnsworth, Roop, and Varnum are all Florida citizens and residents of Sumter County. None of the individual Petitioners offered any evidence relating to direct impacts that the ERP would have on their property. With respect to the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits, anecdotal testimony was presented by Petitioners and Wing and Weir relating to well failures and sinkholes in the area. Two Petitioners, Roop and Varnum, live in close proximity to the property encompassed by the three permits. Petitioner Farnsworth’s property is approximately three and a half miles from the project boundary. Wing and Weir live approximately four and a half to five and 18 miles from the project site, respectively. SCAID is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that has approximately 130 members. Farnsworth, the president of SCAID, identified only Roop and Varnum as members who will be directly affected by the activities to be authorized by the permits. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries. The Utility and the Authority are limited liability companies, of which the Villages Inc. is the managing partner. The Villages Inc. is a Florida corporation. The Utility, which will serve as a provider of potable water, is regulated by the Public Service Commission, while the Authority which will provide irrigation water, is not. The Villages Inc., Development The Villages Inc. is a phased, mixed use, retirement community, which is located at the intersecting borders of Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. Development has been on going since at least 1983, with a current planning horizon of the year 2019. Currently, there are 15,362 constructed dwelling units in the built-out portion of the Villages Inc. that are located in Lake County and the extreme northeast corner of Sumter County. The portion located in Marion County is 60 percent complete, with 750 homes completed and another 600 under construction. Approximately another 22,000 residences are planned for development in Sumter County by the year 2012, with an additional 10,200 by the year 2019. However, the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits are only for a six-year duration, and the ERP has a duration of only six years. None of the permits authorize development activities beyond that time frame. Generally speaking, the three permits at issue include an area owned by the Villages Inc. that lies in northeast Sumter County South of County Road 466 and North of County Road 466A. However, it is not projected that this entire area will be built-out during the terms of three proposed permits. Area Hydrology and Topography In the area of the Villages Inc., there is a layer of approximately five to ten feet of sand at the land surface, which is underlain by ten to 70 feet of a clayey sand. Both of these constitute the surficial aquifer and are extremely leaky, allowing water to percolate easily through to a lower layer. Except in the vicinity of Lake Miona, there is no water in the surficial aquifer except after rainfall events. The clayey sand layer is underlain by the Upper Floridan, a limestone unit. The top of this limestone layer ("the top of the rock") occurs at fluctuating depths of between 30 and 70 feet. At approximately 350 to 400 feet below the land surface, there begins a transition to a denser unit that serves as a confining layer between the Upper Floridan production zone and the Lower Floridan production zone. This confining layer, which was confirmed by drilling at three locations in the Villages Inc. is approximately 150 feet thick in the area of the Villages Inc. Another transition, this time to a less dense formation, begins at approximately 550 to 600 feet, which is considered the top of the Lower Floridan production zone. While testing conducted on the project site indicated almost no leakage between the Upper and Lower Floridan production zones, it is generally known by experts that there is some exchange of water between the two layers. Both the Upper and the Lower Floridan contain water that meets potable water standards and both are considered water production zones. The water quality of the two zones is not significantly different. The project area is prone to karst activity, that is, the formation of sinkholes. Sinkholes are formed as a result of the collapse of the overburden above subsurface cavities which have been formed through a very gradual dissolution of limestone, thus resulting in a "sink" at the land surface. Surface water bodies in the area include Lake Miona, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, and Dry Prairie, as well as several other small wetlands. The Potable Water and Irrigation Permits The potable water permit is for the withdrawal from the Upper Floridan Aquifer of 1.164 million gallons of water per day (MGD), on an annual average, for potable use in residences and both commercial and recreational establishments. It also limits the maximum withdrawal during peak months to 2.909 MGD. The Irrigation Permit is for the withdrawal from the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 2.850 MGD, on an annual average, for use in irrigation. The peak month usage rate permissible under the proposed permit would be 9.090 MGD. Water withdrawal under the Irrigation Permit will be used for the irrigation of residential lawns, common areas, commercial landscaping, and golf courses. Modeling of Drawdowns In assessing the impacts of proposed water withdrawals from an aquifer, District personnel considered effects on the aquifers and on-surface water features in the area. Computer- generated models of the predicted effects of the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits withdrawals provided one of the principal bases for this assessment. The primary geologist assigned to review the permit applications reviewed two of the models submitted by the Utility and the Authority (jointly the WUP Applicants) and ran one personal model of her own in order to predict the effects of the proposed withdrawals on the aquifers, as well as on any wetlands and other surface water bodies. In particular, the models predict both the vertical and horizontal extent to which the withdrawals may lower the level of water within the aquifers and in-surface waters under various conditions. One of the models submitted by the WUP Applicants predicted drawdowns during a 90-day period of no rainfall while the other predicted the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits, considered cumulatively with the effects of withdrawals from the already-existing Villages' development in Sumter, Marion, and Lake Counties. The District’s geologist modeled the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits and included the cumulative effects of all of the current Villages' withdrawals in Sumter County. All of these models included the combined effects of both the proposed Potable Water and the Irrigation Permits. Based upon these models, it is concluded that there will be no significant drawdowns as a result of the withdrawals authorized by the proposed water use permits. Specifically, the only predicted drawdown in the surficial aquifer (0.25 feet of drawdown) is in an area where there are no natural surface water features. Drawdown in the Upper Floridan is predicted at between 0.1 and 0.2 feet, while the drawdown in the Lower Floridan is predicted at a maximum of 1.5 feet. These minor drawdowns are not expected to cause any adverse impacts. Transmissivity is the rate at which water moves horizontally through the aquifer. In areas with high transmissivity, the results of water withdrawals from an aquifer will generally be low in magnitude, but broad in lateral extent. Water withdrawals from areas of low transmissivity will result in cones of depression that are more limited in lateral extent, but steeper vertically. The use of too high a transmissivity rate in a model, would overpredict the horizontal distance of the drawdowns caused by withdrawals, but would underpredict the vertical drawdown in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal. Conversely, use of too low a transmissivity would over-predict the effects in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal but underpredict the lateral extent of the drawdown. The WUP Applicants’ models used a transmissivity value for the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 100,000 feet squared per day ("ft.2/d'). The WUP Applicants’ consultant derived the transmissivity values from a regional model prepared by the University of Florida. The regional model uses a transmissivity value for the entire region of 200,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan. While that transmissivity is appropriate for assessing large-scale impacts, on a more localized level, the transmissivity of the aquifer may be lower. Therefore, the WUP Applicants’ consultant met with District representatives and agreed to use a value half that used in the University of Florida model. A similar approach was used for the transmissivity value used in modeling effects in the Upper Floridan. Notably, specific transmissivity values recorded in four wells in the Villages Inc. area were not used because two of these wells were only cased to a depth of just over 250 feet, with an open hole below that to a depth of 590 feet. Thus, the transmissivity measured in these wells reflect conditions in the confining layer at the immediate location of the wells - not the transmissivity of the Lower Floridan production zone. Further, site-specific information on transmissivity, measured during pump tests at individual wells, does not correlate well to the transmissivity of the aquifer, even at short distances from the well. Transmissivities measured at individual wells are used to determine the depth at which the pump should be set in the well, not to determine the transmissivity of the aquifer. Thus, the use of transmissivities derived from the regional model, but adjusted to be conservative, is entirely appropriate. Moreover, using a transmissivity in her modeling of the project impacts of 27,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan Aquifer, the district geologist’s model predicted no adverse impacts. Leakance is the measure of the resistance of movement vertically through confining units of the aquifer. The leakance value used by the District for the confining layer between the Upper and Lower Floridan was taken from the University of Florida model. Tests conducted on the site actually measured even lower leakance values. Thus, the evidence establishes that the leakance value used in the WUP Applicants’ and the District’s modeling for the Floridan confining layer was reasonable and appropriate. Competent, substantial evidence also establishes that the leakance value used for Lake Miona was reasonable. The WUP Applicants submitted to the District substantial data, gathered over several years, reflecting the balance of water flowing into Lake Miona and the lake’s levels in relation to the potentiometric surface. This documentation verified the leakance value used for Lake Miona in the modeling. Finally, the District modeling used appropriate boundary condition parameters. The District modeling used what is known as the "constant head" boundary and assumes the existence of water generated off-site at the boundaries. Such a boundary simulates the discharge of the aquifer at a certain level. The use of constant head boundaries is an accepted practice. The modeling conducted on behalf of the District and the Applicants provides a reasonable assurances that the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits will not cause adverse water quality or quantity changes to surface or groundwater resources, will not cause adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, and will not cause pollution of the aquifer. Furthermore, because the predicted drawdowns are so insignificant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the withdrawals will not adversely impact existing off-site land uses or existing legal withdrawals. The modeling also provides reasonable assurances that the withdrawals will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. Moreover, monitoring requirements included in the proposed Potable Water and Irrigation Permits provide additional reasonable assurance that – should the withdrawal effects exceed those predicted by the modeling – such effects are identified and necessary steps are taken to mitigate for any potential impacts. The District has reserved the right to modify or revoke all or portions of the water use permits under certain circumstances. Specifically, the proposed Potable Water Permit requires a monitoring plan that includes the following pertinent provisions: There shall be no less than three control wetland and ten onsite wetland monitoring sites; A baseline monitoring report, outlining the current wetland conditions; * * * A statement indicating that an analysis of the water level records for area lakes, including Miona Lake, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, Lake Deaton and Lake Griffin, will be included in the annual report; A statement indicating that an analysis of the spring flow records for Gum Spring, Silver Spring, and Fenney Spring, will be included in the annual report; * * * Wildlife analyses for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods to determine success of the mitigation; A mitigation plan for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods and thresholds to determine success of the mitigation; An annual report of an analysis of the monitoring data . . . . Similar provisions are included in the proposed irrigation permit. The WUP Applicants, in conjunction with the District, have developed sites and methodologies for this monitoring. Reasonable Demand The water to be withdrawn under the proposed Potable Water Permit will serve 10,783 people. This total results from the simple multiplication of the number of residences to be built during the next six years (5,675) by the average number of residents per household (1.9). Those numbers are based upon historical absorption rates within the Villages Inc. development since 1983, an absorption rate that doubles approximately every five years. The Utility proposed a per capita use rate of 108 gallons per day for potable use only. District personnel independently verified that per capita rate, based upon current usage in the existing portions of the Villages Inc. and determined that the rate was reasonable. Based upon the population projections and the per capita rate, the District determined that there is a reasonable demand for the withdrawal of the amount of water, for potable purposes, that is reflected in the Potable Water Permit. The Utility has provided reasonable assurance regarding the Utility’s satisfaction of this permitting criterion. As to the irrigation permit, the Villages Inc. plans, within the next six years, to complete the construction of 1,911 acres of property that will require irrigation. The amount of water originally requested by the Authority for irrigation withdrawals was reduced during the course of the application process at the request of the District. The District determined the reasonable amount of irrigation water needed through the application of AGMOD, a computer model that predicts the irrigation needs of various vegetative covers. Since the Authority intends to utilize treated wastewater effluent as another source of irrigation water, the District reduced the amount of water that it would permit to be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan for irrigation. The District, thus, determined that the Authority would need 1.59 MGD annual average for recreational and aesthetic area irrigation and 1.26 MGD annual average for residential lawn irrigation, for a total of 2.85 MGD. The Villages Inc. also plans to accumulate stormwater in lined ponds for irrigation use. However, unlike its treatment of wastewater effluent, the District did not deduct accumulated stormwater from the amount of water deemed necessary for irrigation. This approach was adopted due to the inability to predict short-term rainfall amounts. The uncontroverted evidence of record establishes reasonable assurances that there is a reasonable demand for the amount of water to be withdrawn under the proposed irrigation permit. Conservation and Reuse Measures Both the Utility and the Authority applications included proposed measures for the conservation and reuse of water. The conservation plan submitted in conjunction with the irrigation permit application provides for control valves to regulate both the pressure and timing of irrigation by residential users; contractual restrictions on water use by commercial users; xeriscaping; and an irrigation control system for golf course irrigation that is designed to maximize the efficient use of water. In addition, in the proposed permits, the District requires the Utility and the Authority to expand upon these conservation measures through such measures as educational efforts, inclined block rate structures, and annual reporting to assess the success of conservation measures. The Authority also committed to reduce its dependence on groundwater withdrawals through the reuse of wastewater effluent, both from the on-site wastewater treatment facility and through contract with the City of Wildwood. Reasonable assurances have been provided that conservation measures have been incorporated and that, to the maximum extent practicable, reuse measures have been incorporated. Use of Lowest Available Quality of Water In addition to the reuse of treated wastewater effluent, the Authority intends to minimize its dependence on groundwater withdrawals for irrigation use through the reuse of stormwater accumulated in lined ponds. Thirty-one of the lined stormwater retention ponds to be constructed by the Villages Inc. are designed as a component of the irrigation system on-site. Ponds will be grouped with the individual ponds within each group linked through underground piping. There will be an electronically controlled valve in the stormwater pond at the end of the pipe that will be used to draw out water for irrigation purposes. These lined stormwater ponds serve several purposes. However, the design feature that is pertinent to the reuse of stormwater for irrigation is the inclusion of additional storage capacity below the top of the pond liner. No groundwater will be withdrawn for irrigation purposes unless the level of stormwater in these lined ponds drops below a designed minimum irrigation level. Groundwater pumped into these ponds will then be pumped out for irrigation. Thus, the use of groundwater for irrigation is minimized. The Authority has met its burden of proving that it will use the lowest quality of water available. With respect to the potable permit, the evidence establishes that there are only minor differences between the water quality in the Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan in this area. The Upper Floridan is a reasonable source for potable supply in this area. Thus, reasonable assurances have been provided by the Utility that it will utilize the lowest water quality that it has the ability to use for potable purposes. Waste of Water In regard to concerns that the design of the Villages Inc.'s stormwater/irrigation system will result in wasteful losses of water due to evaporation from the surface of the lined ponds, it must be noted that there are no artesian wells relating to this project and nothing in the record to suggest that the groundwater withdrawals by either the Utility or the Authority will cause excess water to run into the surface water system. Additionally, the evidence establishes that, to the extent groundwater will be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan and pumped into lined stormwater ponds, such augmentation is not for an aesthetic purpose. Instead, the groundwater added to those ponds will be utilized as an integral part of the irrigation system and will be limited in quantity to the amount necessary for immediate irrigation needs. Finally, the water to be withdrawn will be put to beneficial potable and irrigation uses, rather than wasteful purposes. Under current regulation, water lost from lined stormwater ponds through evaporation is not considered as waste. Thus, the Authority and the Utility have provided reasonable assurances that their withdrawals of groundwater will not result in waste. The ERP The stormwater management system proposed by the Villages Inc. will eventually serve 5,016 acres on which residential, commercial, golf course, and other recreational development will ultimately be constructed. However, the proposed permit currently at issue is preliminary in nature and will only authorize the construction of stormwater ponds, earthworks relating to the construction of compensating flood storage, and wetland mitigation. Water Quality Impacts The stormwater management system will include eight shallow treatment ponds that will be adjacent to Lake Miona and Black Lake and 45 lined retention ponds. Thirty-one of these lined ponds will serve as part of the irrigation system for a portion of the Villages Inc.'s development. All of these ponds provide water quality treatment. The unlined ponds will retain the first one inch of stormwater and then overflow into the lakes. The ponds provide water quality treatment of such water before it is discharged into the lakes. The water quality treatment provided by these ponds provides reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely impact the water quality of receiving waters. While they do not discharge directly to surface receiving waters, the lined retention ponds do provide protection against adverse water quality impacts on groundwater. There will be some percolation from these ponds, from the sides at heights above the top of the liner. However, the liners will prevent the discharge of pollutants through the highly permeable surface strata into the groundwater. The Villages Inc. designed the system in this manner in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Environmental Protection during the DRI process regarding potential pollutant loading of the aquifer at the retention pond sites. Furthermore, by distributing the accumulated stormwater - through the irrigation system - over a wider expanse of vegetated land surface, a greater degree of water quality treatment will be achieved than if the stormwater were simply permitted to percolate directly through the pond bottom. There is no reasonable expectation that pollutants will be discharged into the aquifer from the lined ponds. If dry ponds were used, there would be an accumulation of pollutants in the pond bottom. These measures provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impact on the quality of receiving waters. Water Quantity Impacts With regard to the use of lined retention ponds, as part of the Villages Inc.’s stormwater system and the impact of such ponds on water quantity, the evaporative losses from lined ponds as opposed to unlined ponds is a differential of approximately one (1) inch of net recharge. The acreage of the lined ponds - even measured at the very top of the pond banks - is only 445 acres. That differential, in terms of a gross water balance, is not significant, in view of the other benefits provided by the lined ponds. As part of the project, wetlands will be created and expanded and other water bodies will be created. After rainfalls, these unlined ponds will be filled with water and will lose as much water through evaporation as would any other water body. The design proposed by the Villages Inc., however, will distribute the accumulated stormwater across the project site through the irrigation of vegetated areas. The documentation submitted by the Villages Inc. establishes that the ERP will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. The Villages Inc. has carried its burden as to this permitting criterion. Flooding, Surface Water Conveyance, and Storage Impacts Parts of the project are located in areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) as 100-year flood zones. Specifically, these areas are located along Lake Miona, Black Lake, between Black Lake and Cherry Lake, and at some locations south of Black Lake. Under the District’s rules, compensation must be provided for any loss of flood zone in filled areas by the excavation of other areas. The District has determined, based upon the documentation provided with the Villages Inc.’s application, work on the site will encroach on 871.37 acre feet of the FEMA 100-year flood zone. However, 1,051.70 acre feet of compensating flood zone is being created. The Villages Inc. proposes to mitigate for the loss of flood zone primarily in the areas of Dry Prairie and Cherry Lake. At present, Cherry Lake is the location of a peat mining operation authorized by DEP permit. Mining has occurred at that site since the early 1980s. The flood zone mitigation proposed by the Villages Inc. provides reasonable assurance that it will sufficiently compensate for any loss of flood basin storage. The Villages Inc.'s project provides reasonable assurance that it will neither adversely affect surface water storage or conveyance capabilities, surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows nor cause adverse flooding. Each of the 45 retention ponds to be constructed on-site will include sufficient capacity, above the top of the pond liner, to hold a 100-year/24-hour storm event. This includes stormwater drainage from off-site. In addition, these ponds are designed to have an extra one foot of freeboard above that needed for the 100-year/24-hour storm, thus providing approximately an additional 100 acres of flood storage beyond that which will be lost through construction on-site. Furthermore, the Villages Inc. has proposed an emergency flood plan. In the event of a severe flood event, excess water will be pumped from Dry Prairie, Cherry Lake, and Lake Miona and delivered to the retention ponds and to certain golf course fairways located such that habitable living spaces would not be endangered. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation There are 601 acres of wetlands and surface waters of various kinds in the Villages Inc.’s project area. Forty-one acres of wetlands will be impacted by the work that is authorized under the ERP. Each of these impacted wetlands, along with the extent of the impact, is listed in the ERP. The impacts include both fill and excavation and all will be permanent. When assessing wetland impacts and proposed mitigation for those impacts, the District seeks to ensure that the activities proposed will not result in a net loss of wetland functionality. The object is to ensure that the end result will function at least as well as did the wetlands in their pre-impact condition. Functional value is judged, at least in part, by the long term viability of the wetland. While small, isolated wetlands are not completely without value, large wetland ecosystems – which are less susceptible to surrounding development – generally have greater long-term habitat value. The District’s policy is that an applicant need not provide any mitigation for the loss of habitat in wetlands of less than 0.5 acre, except under certain limited circumstances, including where the wetland is utilized by threatened or endangered species. Some wetlands that will be impacted by the Villages Inc.’s project are of high functional value and some are not as good. The Villages Inc. proposes a variety of types of mitigation for the wetlands impacts that will result from its project, all of which are summarized in the ERP. In all, 331.55 acres of mitigation are proposed by the Villages Inc. First, the District proposes to create new wetlands. Approximately 11 acres of this new wetland will consist of a marsh, which is to be created east of Cherry Lake. Second, it proposes to undertake substantial enhancement of Dry Prairie, a 126-acre wetland. Currently – and since at least the early nineties – Dry Prairie received discharge water from the peat mining operation at Cherry Lake. Without intervention, when the mining operations stop, Dry Prairie would naturally become drier than it has been for several years and would lose some of the habitat function that it has been providing. The Villages Inc.’s proposed enhancement is designed to match the current hydroperiods of Dry Prairie, thus ensuring its continued habitat value. Third, the Villages Inc. has proposed to enhance upland buffers around wetlands and surface waters by planting natural vegetation, thus providing a natural barrier. Placement of these buffers in conservation easements does not provide the Villages Inc. with mitigation credit, since a 25-foot buffer is required anyway. However, the District determined that the enhancement of these areas provided functional value to the wetlands and surface waters that would not be served by the easements alone. Fourth, the Villages Inc. will place a conservation easement over certain areas, including a 1500-foot radius preserve required by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) around an identified eagles’ nest. These areas will also be used for the relocation of gopher tortoises and, if any are subsequently located, of gopher frogs. While the Villages Inc. is also performing some enhancement of this area, it will receive no mitigation credit for such enhancement – which was required to meet FWCC requirements. However, since the conservation easement will remain in effect in perpetuity, regardless of whether the eagles continue to use the nest, the easement ensures the continued, viability of the area’s wetlands and provides threatened and endangered species habitat. In order to provide additional assurances that these mitigation efforts will be successful, the District has included a condition in the proposed permit establishing wetland mitigation success criteria for the various types of proposed mitigation. If these success criteria are not achieved, additional mitigation must be provided. With the above described mitigation, the activities authorized under the ERP will not adversely impact the functional value of wetlands and other surface waters to fish or wildlife. The Villages Inc. has met its burden of providing reasonable assurances relating to this permit criterion. Capability of Performing Effectively The Villages Inc. has also provided reasonable assurances that the stormwater management system proposed is capable of functioning as designed. The retention ponds proposed are generally of a standard-type design and will not require complicated maintenance procedures. In its assessment of the functional capability of the system, the District did not concern itself with the amount of stormwater that the system might contribute for irrigation purposes. Rather, it focused its consideration on the stormwater management functions of the system. The question of the effectiveness of the system for irrigation purposes is not relevant to the determination of whether the Villages Inc. has met the criteria for permit issuance. Consequently, the record establishes that the documentation provided by the Villages Inc. contains reasonable assurances that the stormwater system will function effectively and as proposed. Operation Entity The Villages Inc. has created Community Development District No. 5 (CDD No. 5), which will serve as the entity responsible for the construction and maintenance of the stormwater system. CDD No. 5 will finance the construction through special revenue assessment bonds and will finance maintenance through the annual assessments. Similar community development districts were established to be responsible for earlier phases of the Villages Inc. The ERP includes a specific condition that, prior to any wetlands impacts, the Villages Inc. will either have to provide the District with documentation of the creation of a community development district or present the District with a performance bond in the amount of $1,698,696.00. Since the undisputed testimony at hearing was that CDD No. 5 has, in fact, now been created, there are reasonable assurances of financial responsibility. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Villages Inc.’s application also provides accurate and reliable information sufficient to establish that there are reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater system will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands or other surface waters or adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The system is designed in a manner that will meet water treatment criteria and there will be no secondary water quality impacts. Further, the use of buffers will prevent secondary impacts to wetlands and wetland habitats and there will be no secondary impacts to archeological or historical resources. In this instance, the stormwater system proposed by the Villages Inc. will function in a manner that replaces any water quantity or water quality functions lost by construction of the system. In its assessment of the possible cumulative impacts of the system, the District considered areas beyond the bounds of the current project, including the area to the south that is currently being reviewed under the DRI process as a substantial deviation. The District’s environmental scientist, Leonard Bartos, also reviewed that portion of the substantial deviation north of County Road 466A, in order to determine the types of wetlands present there. Furthermore, the District is one of the review agencies that comments on DRI and substantial deviation applications. When such an application is received by the District’s planning division, it is routed to the regulatory division for review. The District includes its knowledge of the DRIs in its determination that there are no cumulative impacts. Reasonable assurances have been provided as to these permitting criteria. Public Interest Balancing Test Because the proposed stormwater system will be located in, on, and over certain wetlands, the Villages Inc. must provide reasonable assurances that the system will not be contrary to the public interest. This assessment of this permitting criteria requires that the District balance seven factors. While the effects of the proposed activity will be permanent, the Villages Inc. has provided reasonable assurances that it will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare; on fishing or recreational values; on the flow of water; on environmental resources, including fish and wildlife and surface water resources; or on off-site properties. Furthermore, the District has carefully assessed the current functions being provided by the affected wetland areas. With respect to historical or archeological resources, the Villages Inc. has received letters from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, stating that there are no significant historical or archeological resources on the project site that is the subject of this permit proceeding. Thus, the evidence establishes reasonable assurances that the Villages Inc.'s stormwater system will not be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the District and Applicant presented uncontroverted evidence that the proposed project will not adversely impact a work of the District, and that there are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing Water Use Permit Nos. 20012236.000 and 20012239.000 and Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001, in accordance with the District’s proposed agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of June, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's water use permit should be revoked for nonuse of the permit for a period of two years or more.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The District is a state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing water use permits under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40B- 2 for the geographic area under its statutory jurisdiction. Alachua County is within that geographic jurisdiction. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices at 700 Northwest Cheeota Avenue, High Springs, in northern Alachua County. It owns approximately 700 acres in High Springs (west of Interstate Highway 75) on which it operates a church retreat and summer camping and recreational facility known as Camp Kulaqua. The property surrounds, and is contiguous to, Hornsby Spring, a first-order magnitude spring (having a flow rate of 100 CFS or greater) which, under normal conditions, discharges into the nearby Santa Fe River. Hornsby Spring is one of 296 documented springs within the District's jurisdiction. After receiving an overture from a representative of a private water bottling company, on September 28, 1999, Respondent filed an application for a General Water Use Permit in Township 7 South, Range 17 East, Section 26, in High Springs. In its application, Respondent represented that it desired a daily allocation of 2,000,000 gallons; that it intended to install two 12-inch wells, each having a capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute, just east of, and upgradient from, Hornsby Spring; and that all water withdrawals would be used in conjunction with a privately-owned commercial spring water bottling facility to be located on its property. The application also represented that the facility would employ 36 persons and operate 168 hours per week. The application was reviewed by a former District hydrogeologist, William H. Kirk. During the review process, and in response to Mr. Kirk's request for more information, Respondent provided a comparison of the requested allocation with the overall flow of Hornsby Spring. This was because Mr. Kirk was concerned that the requested allocation was "a bit high," and he wanted to ensure that the issuance of the permit would not cause harm to, or adversely affect, the water resources. Under a professional guideline that Mr. Kirk used, if the applicant could show that the cumulative amount being withdrawn was to be less than ten percent of what the available data showed to be the mean spring flow, the District would consider it to be "an acceptable impact." Notwithstanding Mr. Kirk's use of this guideline, the District points out that there is no District rule or policy sanctioning the ten percent rule, and at hearing it denied that this standard is used by the District in assessing water use applications. Further, the Permit itself does not refer to a relationship between spring flow and the size of the allocation. Even so, this analysis was considered by Mr. Kirk in determining whether Respondent had given reasonable assurance that the spring would not be impacted. In its response to the request for additional information, Respondent reduced its requested allocation to 750,000 gallons per day and indicated that if a bottling plant were to be constructed on its property, approximately 700,000 gallons of the total allocation would be consumed in "bulk transfer and bottling," with the remainder for camp use. More specifically, Respondent indicated that it would allocate 490,000 gallons per day for bulk transport, 210,000 gallons per day for spring bottling water, and 50,000 gallons per day for incidental uses at its property. By reducing the allocation from 2,000,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day, Respondent's requested average daily allocation represented only 0.4 percent of the average daily spring flow as measured over the last 28 years. The reduced allocation satisfied Mr. Kirk's concern that Respondent demonstrate a reasonable demand and a reasonable need for that allocation, and he recommended approval of the application.2 On February 25, 2000, the District approved the application and issued Water Use Permit No. 2-99-00130 (Permit).3 The Permit authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.7500 million gallons per day (750,000 gallons per day) or a maximum daily withdrawal and use of 0.7500 million gallons per day with an annual allocation not to exceed 273.750 million gallons (273,750,000 gallons) per calendar year in conjunction with the operation of a privately-owned water bottling plant. The Permit expires on February 25, 2020. After the Permit was issued, under the regulatory process in place, Respondent was required first to obtain a permit for a temporary test well which would be used to collect information concerning the site of the proposed activity, and to then file an application for permits authorizing the construction and operation of the two 12-inch production wells. The Permit contains a number of conditions, two of which require a brief comment. First, Condition No. 2 provides that "[t]his permit is classified as unconfined [F]loridan aquifer for privately owned bottled water plant." This means that all water withdrawals must be made from the unconfined Floridan aquifer, as opposed to the spring head of Hornsby Spring. (Respondent's proposed siting of its two production wells 660 yards east of the spring is consistent with this provision.) Second, Condition No. 4 provides that "[t]he permittee shall submit daily pumpage records on a monthly basis to the [District]." Pumpage reports are filed by permittees so that the District can determine whether the permit is actually being used, and if so, to ensure that the amount of water being withdrawn under the permit does not exceed the authorized allocation. As it turned out, pumpage reports were never filed by Respondent. (However, the record shows that the District has never strictly enforced this requirement for any permittee.) In late 2002, the District staff undertook a review of the nine water bottling permit holders within its jurisdiction, including Respondent. That category of permit holders was selected for review because of the small number of permits and the limited resources of the District staff. (In all, the District has probably issued several thousand permits to other types of users.) On February 4, 2003, the District served its Complaint under the authority of Sections 120.60 and 373.243, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-2.341. As grounds for revoking the permit, the District alleged that there was "non-use of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of two (2) years or more." Although Respondent contends that it should have been given an opportunity to correct the nonuse allegation before the Complaint was issued, nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act or District rules requires that this be done. Until the issuance of the Complaint against Respondent in early 2003, and similar Complaints against eight other permit holders at the same time, the District had never invoked this statutory provision.4 There is no evidence to support Respondent's contention that the Complaints were issued for "purely political reasons." On March 4, 2003, Respondent requested a formal hearing challenging the District's proposed action. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the issues have been broadly described as follows: whether Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes, is to be strictly or liberally construed; whether Respondent's nonuse is based upon extreme hardship for reasons beyond its control; and whether the District is equitably estopped from permit revocation. (According to the District, even if the Permit is revoked, such revocation is without prejudice to Respondent reapplying for, and receiving, another permit so long as it meets all applicable requirements.) Equitable Estoppel Respondent first contends that the District is estopped from revoking its Permit on the theory that, under the circumstances here, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. For that doctrine to apply, however, Respondent must show that the District made a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; that Respondent relied upon that representation; and that the District then changed its position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent. See, e.g., Salz v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 432 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The District issued Respondent's Permit on the condition that Respondent operate in conformity with all pertinent statutes and regulations. This finding is consistent with language on the face of the Permit, which states that the Permit "may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder." Respondent relied on the District's representation that it could use the Permit so long as it complied with all statutes and regulations. In reliance on that representation, in addition to staff time, after its Permit was issued, Respondent expended "somewhere around" $70,000.00 to $74,000.00 for conducting water quality testing; sending cave divers underground to ascertain the correct location of the portion of the aquifer on which to place its production wells; drilling a 6-inch test well in August 2000; obtaining the City of High Springs' approval in March 2000 for industrial zoning on a 10-acre tract of land on which to site a "water plant"; and engaging the services of a professional who assisted Respondent in "seeking out businesses and getting the right qualifications of the spring water to make sure that it was a marketable water." The District has never asserted anything different from its original position: that if Petitioner complied with all statutes and rules, it could continue to lawfully make water withdrawals under its Permit. The issuance of the Complaint did not represent a change in the District's position. Because a change in position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent did not occur, the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel are not present. Was the Permit Used? A preliminary review by District staff indicated that Respondent had never filed the daily pumpage reports on a monthly basis and had never requested permits authorizing the construction of the two 12-inch production wells. These preliminary observations were confirmed at final hearing, along with the fact that Respondent has never entered into an agreement with a water bottling company (although draft agreements were once prepared); that Respondent has never constructed a water bottling facility; and that no operations were ever conducted under the Permit. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent did not use its Permit for the two-year period after it was issued, as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's contention that the evidence fails to support this finding belies the evidence of record. In an effort to show that it actually used the Permit, Respondent points out that in August 2000 it applied for, and received a permit to construct, an unmetered 6-inch test well in association with its General Water Use Permit. (Respondent sometimes erroneously refers to the test well as a test production well. This is incorrect as the well is a test well, and not a production well.) After the test well was installed, at some point Respondent says it began withdrawing approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water from that well for incidental uses associated with the operation of Camp Kulaqua.5 These withdrawals were made on the assumption that the test well permit fell under the broad umbrella of the General Water Use Permit. (Respondent also has a permitted 6- inch diameter well and an unregulated 4-inch well on its premises, both of which are used for water supply needs at Camp Kulaqua.) It is true, as Respondent asserts, that its Permit authorized incidental withdrawals of up to 50,000 gallons per day for unspecified uses at Camp Kulaqua. However, these withdrawals are authorized under the General Water Use Permit and not the test well permit. The two permits are separate and distinct. On the one hand, a test well is intended to be temporary in nature and used only for the purpose of test well development and collecting information regarding the height of the aquifer and water quality at the site of the proposed activity. Conversely, withdrawals for any other purpose, even incidental, must be made from the production wells, which are only authorized by the General Water Use Permit. Before a test well can be used for normal consumptive purposes, the permit holder must seek a modification of the permit to include it as a part of its general water use permit. Here, no such modification was sought by Respondent, and no authorization was given by the District. Therefore, Respondent's incidental water uses associated with its test well cannot be counted as "uses" for the purpose of complying with the use requirement in Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes. In light of the District's credible assertion to the contrary, Respondent's contention that it is common practice to lawfully withdraw water from a test well for incidental consumptive purposes has been rejected. (It is noted, however, that the District has not charged Respondent with violating the terms of its test well permit.) Extreme Hardship Under Section 373.243, Florida Statutes (which was enacted in 1972), the District is authorized to revoke a water use permit "for nonuse of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of 2 years." However, if the user "can prove that his or her nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control," revocation of the permit is not warranted. The phrase "extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control" is not defined by statute or rule. In the context of this case, however, the District considers an extreme hardship to occur under two scenarios. First, if the aquifer level has dropped so low due to drought conditions that a permit holder cannot access the water through its well, its nonuse is excusable. Alternatively, if an emergency order has been issued by the District directing permit holders (including Respondent) to stop pumping due to certain conditions, an extreme hardship has occurred. (Presumably, a severe water shortage would precipitate such an order.) In this case, the District issued a water shortage advisory, but not an emergency order, due to a "severe drought," indicating that users could still pump water, but were encouraged to voluntarily reduce their usage. This advisory remained in effect from the summer of 1998 until the spring of 2003, when a severe drought ended. However, no emergency order was ever issued by the District. Respondent contends that its nonuse was due to an extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control. More specifically, it argues that a severe drought occurred in Alachua County during the years 1998-2003, and that under these conditions, federal regulations prevented it from withdrawing water for bottling purposes, which was the primary purpose for securing a permit. Further, even if it had withdrawn water during these drought conditions, such withdrawals could have adversely impacted Hornsby Spring and constituted a violation of a District requirement that water resources not be adversely impacted. Because an investment of several hundred thousand dollars was required to drill and install the two production wells, Respondent contends it was not financially prudent to make that type of investment and begin operations until normal spring conditions returned. These contentions are discussed in greater detail below. Around September 7, 1999, a representative of a water bottling company first approached Respondent about the possibility of the two jointly operating a water bottling plant and/or transporting water in bulk from Respondent's property. Prompted by this interest, less than three weeks later Respondent filed its application for a water use permit (although at that time it did not mention on the application that off-site bulk transfers would occur), and a permit was eventually issued in February 2000. Later, and through a professional firm it employed, Respondent had discussions with representatives of several bottling companies, including Great Springs Waters of America (Great Springs) and Perrier Group of America. Apparently, these more serious discussions with a potential suitor did not take place until either late 2000 or the spring of 2001. Periodic measurements taken by District staff at Hornsby Spring reflected natural drought conditions from April 2000 to April 2003. As noted earlier, this was the product of a "severe drought" which took place between the summer of 1998 and the spring of 2003; the drought was one of a magnitude that occurs only once in every 50 to 100 years. During the years 2000 through 2002, the spring had zero flow or was barely flowing much of the time.6 Had Respondent pumped water during 20 out of the 24 months after the Permit was issued, it could have potentially violated the requirement that it not harm Hornsby Spring. This fact is acknowleged by a District witness who agreed that if the "spring is not flowing, . . . [pumping] would have an [adverse] impact." Even as late as October 2003, the spring had tannic discoloration caused by the lengthy drought conditions. The parties agree, however, that there is no water shortage in the District at the present time. To illustrate the difficulty that it experienced in obtaining a joint venture partner for water bottling purposes, Respondent established that in the spring of 2001, a Great Springs representative visited the site when the spring was "barely flowing." For obvious reasons, Respondent could not "bring a party there who would want to enter into a business [agreement]" under those conditions. These same conditions remained in effect during most of the two year period. The District points out, however, that even though the spring was low or barely flowing, so long as the aquifer itself was not too low, Respondent could still withdraw water from the aquifer, since Condition 2 of the Permit authorizes withdrawals from the aquifer, and not the spring. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that when a spring ceases to flow, the aquifer has simply dropped below the level of the spring vent; even under these circumstances, however, there may still be a substantial quantity of water in the aquifer available for pumping. Assuming that it could still lawfully pump water when the spring was dry or barely flowing without causing adverse impacts to the spring, Respondent was still subject to federal regulations which govern the bottling of spring water. See Title 21, Part 165, C.F.R. For spring water to be marketed as bottled "spring water," 21 C.F.R. § 165.119(2)(vi) requires that the water "be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring." This means that the bore hole had to be physically connected with the cave system feeding Hornsby Spring or produce water of the same quality as that discharging from the spring. The regulation goes on to provide that "[i]f spring water is collected with the use of an external force [such as by a pump], water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice." While this regulation obviously does not prohibit Respondent from pumping water, since that authority lies within the District's exclusive jurisdiction, it does provide that in order to use spring water for bottling purposes, the water must continue to flow naturally from the aquifer to the spring. If it does not, the water cannot be used for this purpose. Because Hornsby Spring had zero flow for parts of 2001 and 2002, and severely reduced flows during most of the other time during the two-year period ending February 2002, Respondent was effectively prevented by the foregoing regulation from using the water for bottling purposes. Therefore, Respondent's nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control -- a severe drought lasting throughout the two-year period after the Permit was issued, and federal regulations which prevented it from using water for the purpose for which the Permit was issued. Thus, the nonuse is excusable.
Findings Of Fact The CLDD was established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, on August 4, 1967. Its purpose was to "reclaim" or render the land within its boundaries usable for agricultural purposes. The land comprising the CLDD consists of approximately 3,500 acres in Lee County, mostly planted in citrus trees. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, a "Plan of Reclamation" was prepared by consulting engineers for the CLDD's Board of Supervisors in August, 1967. That plan contains provisions for reclaiming lands within the CLDD's boundaries and for managing and controlling surface water within CLDD. The method of water control outlined in the 1967 reclamation plan included a dike and ditch system around the boundaries of CLDD with a series of interior canals to carry excess water away from the citrus trees. The land in the north part of he CLDD is higher than the south and water generally, naturally flows from north to south. The interior canals were designed to carry water in accordance with existing contours of the land and eventually discharge excess surface water to the rim ditches on the north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," which is south of the CLDD and which was then owned by the C&SFFCD, the predecessor agency to SFWMD. The system of drainage delineated in that 1967 plan, inaugurated pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, was put into effect substantially as described therein. CLDD's 1967 plan was altered somewhat because of an agreement entered into on September 30, 1971, between the CLDD and neighboring landowner Kenneth Daniels. Pursuant to that agreement, the two parties agreed to extend the dike on the west side of the CLDD property and construct a ditch from a point 50 feet north of the northwest corner of the Petitioner Mellor's property, which new ditch was to run southwest across the Daniels' property and connect with Spanish Creek. That ditch or canal would thus connect the western rim ditch of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" with Spanish Creek and have the result that surface waters could be discharged from CLDD lands through the western rim ditch of Spoil Area "M" thence through the "Daniels' Ditch" finally discharging into the lower reaches of Spanish Creek. (see Exhibits 1 and 11) Because the western side or western rim canal of the SFWMD's Spoil Area "M" had not been used under the original plan of reclamation approved by the C&SFFCD, CLDD sought permission from C&SFFCD to use this western rim canal for the purpose stated pursuant to the agreement with Daniels. Thus, CLDD's proposed use of the rim canal of Spoil Area "M" would be confined to the western, northern and eastern perimeter canals and not the southern boundary canal. All affected landowners, Kenneth Daniels as well a Jake and Lilly Lee, agreed to those proposed installations and uses. The resulting agreement between CLDD and C&SFFCD was entered into on October 12, 1972, and describes the flood control District land to be used by CLDD as a 100 foot wide strip running along the west, north and east sides of Spoil Area "M," also know as "Aspic." This 100 foot wide strip of land running thusly is co-extensive with the rim ditch of Spoil Area "M." The CLDD was mandated by this agreement to install 72- inch pipes in the rim ditch at the southwest corner of the spoil area, just north of the Mellor property, giving a point of discharge from the western rim ditch into the Daniels' Ditch with similar pipes connecting that Daniels' Ditch with Spanish Creek, such that the canal between these two points could carry water from the west rim ditch to Spanish Creek. The easement incorporated in this agreement was to last for five years with an option for a five-year renewal, which option was exercised. At the end of this 10-year period, SFWMD, successor to C&SFFCD, notified CLDD that because its statutory authority had since changed, the easement could not be renewed and that CLDD would have to seek the subject permit so as to be authorized to use works and lands of the District. The requirements to be met by an applicant for a right-of-way permit such as this one are set out in Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, and SFWMD's permitting information manual, Vol. V, Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District, July, 1981, which is incorporated by reference in that rule. In that connection, the permit at issue, if granted, would not cause an interference with the "works" of the District, that is dikes, ditches, flood control structures arid drainage structures because it would merely renew the pre-existing authorized use. The permit will not be inconsistent with an comprehensive water use plan developed by the District. Further, the permit applicant owns or leases the land adjacent to the portion of the "works of the District" involved herein that is the east, north and west rim ditches of Spoil Area "M," the Daniels' Ditch and the pipes at either end of it coupled with the water control structures at the southeast corner and southwest corners of Spoil Area "M," which control water entering the south rim ditch. CLDD has a surface water management permit, issued in August, 1980, which is a prerequisite to the granting of the subject right-of-way permit. It remains in full force and effect. That surface water management permit authorizes "operation of a water management system serving 3,642 acres of agricultural lands by a network of canals and control structures, with a perimeter dike and canal discharging into Cypress Creek." The "surface permit" authorized the system of drainage and discharge in existence at the time of its issuance, May 8, 1980. The system of drainage, at the day of the hearing, consisted of the same basic water flow and discharge pattern that existed for approximately 10 years, and this permit would allow that to be continued, thus, there will not be any additional effect on environmentally sensitive lands occasioned by an issuance of the subject right-of-way permit. The surface water management permit, by its terms, refers initially to the operation of a water management system" . . . discharging into Cypress Creek." The reference to "Cypress Creek" was an administrative error. The express language on the face of the permit authorization incorporates by reference the application, including all plans and specifications attached thereto, as addressed by the staff report, and those materials, including the staff report, are a part of the permit. The complete permit, including all those documents incorporated by reference, makes it clear that the authorization of the surface water management permit was that the system of drainage in existence at the time of permit issuance (1980) was that which was being approved, and that included discharge to Spanish Creek and not Cypress Creek. Discharge of water to Cypress Creek as an alternative was never recommended or authorized by that surface water management permit. This is clearly the intent expressed in the permit in view of the language contained in a special condition of that surface water management permit imposed by the SFWMD as a condition for issuance which stated as follows: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit the permittee shall submit for staff approval a proposal and schedule for the elimination of the adverse impacts being created by the operation of the permittee's water management system, which can be legally and physically accomplished by the permittee. Adverse impacts are considered herein to be reduced flows to Spanish Creek and increased flows to Cypress Creek. Thus, it is obvious that the authorization of the surface water management permit was designed to provide for discharge into Spanish Creek and to enhance the flows to Spanish Creek pursuant to a required proposal which the permittee submitted to SFWMD. Thus, the right-of-way permit applied for herein is consistent with the valid surface water management permit held by the permit applicant in this proceeding. Petitioners William H. and Patricia H. Mellor are co-owners of parcels of property lying some distance south of Spoil Area "4" in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee River. This property does not abut the spoil area at any point. Spanish Creek does cross their property several thousand feet south of the south boundary of the spoil area. In the past, particularly in 1982, water flowing from the south rim ditch of the spoil area through a break in the dike of that south rim ditch, has flowed through a ditch known as Dry Creek in a generally southerly direction under S.R. 78 and has washed out an access road constructed by William Mellor which leads from Highway 78 to his property. He had this washout repaired at his own expense in 1982. The washout was caused by water from CLDD flowing into the south rim canal of Spoil Area "M," that is, the ditch that traverses (and defines) the southerly boundary of the spoil area. Mr. Mellor admitted, however, that SFWMD had at least partially plugged the opening in the south rim ditch which had allowed flow down the Dry Creek ditch and wash out his road. If closed water control structures are maintained at the southwest and southeast corners of the spoil area ditches, then no water could flow into the south rim canal and no such injury could again be caused. Petitioner's Jim English and Patricia Mellor are co-owners of a 45- acre parcel of land located in the southwest corner of Spoil Area "M." The five acres forming the extreme southwest corner of the spoil area do not belong to these Petitioners, but are owned by one Lynwood Brown, who is not a party to this proceeding. The English/Mellor property forms a part of the spoil area, but does not adjoin or constitute any part of the spoil area which is sought to be used by CLDD through the proposed right-of-way use permit (as clarified by CLDD's stipulation). The south rim ditch, either part of, or adjoined by their property, has been used for water storage in the past (they maintain illegally) 1/ Mr. Tom Pancoast has observed Spanish Creek frequently over a nine- year period starting in approximately 1973. He has often used those waters during that period for fishing. During the early years of his use and observation of Spanish Creek, the water flowed out of Spanish Creek into the Caloosahatchee River. Beginning in about 1976, the water appeared to be flowing in the opposite direction, from the river into Spanish Creek. Contemporaneous with this hydrologic change, the creek has become increasingly characterized by siltation and hyacinth growth. Mr. William Mellor owns property along the course of Spanish Creek. He has used the stream for recreational purposes, picnicking where the stream traverses his property. In recent years there has occurred a marked increase in the growth or profusion of aquatic plants of unidentified types in the creek, reduced clarity and reduced flows or volumes of water in the creek. Witness English has made a similar observation. Witness James English has a substantial degree of training by formal education and experience in water management and drainage practices and methods, particularly as they relate to citrus grove development and management in southwest Florida. Mr. English has observed Spanish Creek regularly for most of his life, including the region of its headwaters in the "Cow Prairie Cypress," a remnant wetland cypress strand lying within the CLDD immediately north of Soil Area "M." The chief adverse impact of the CLDD water management system is reduced flow to Spanish Creek, especially its upper reaches since the advent of the "Daniels' Ditch" as a drainage route and discharge point into lower Spanish Creek. However, the only special condition on the issuance of the surface water management permit approving CLDD's extant water management system was the requirement that CLDD should submit a plan for eliminating that adverse effect, which it did (as Petitioner English admits). Beyond the submission of such a plan, no concrete action designed to restore historic flows to Spanish Creek has yet begun, however. The restoration of historic flows, adequate in volume and quality, to the entire creek system would require discharging water from CLDD's system to the Cow Prairie Cypress area at the headwaters of the creek rather than substantially further downstream at the present Daniels' Ditch site. The Petitioners' complaints (aside from the issue of adequacy of flows in Spanish Creek), although meritorious, are, because of stipulations asserted by CLDD during the course of this proceeding, now rendered moot. CLDD stipulated that it only seeks a permit to use the west, north and eastern spoil area ditches. It does not seek and stipulated that it will not use, at any time, the south rim ditch and will maintain water control structures so to block water from entering that ditch. This will alleviate the problem of potential storage of water on Petitioners English and Patricia Mellor's property and the erosion problem on Petitioners William and Patricia Mellor's property south of the spoil area. It was thus established that the issuance of the right-of-way permit will not cause the injuries these Petitioners have suffered in the past because of use of the south rim ditch for water drainage and storage.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District grant the County Line Drainage District's application for a permit for utilization of works and lands of the District. Subject to the following special condition: Issuance of this right-of-way permit does not relieve the Respondent CLDD from the responsibility of complying with special condition number 1 of the surface water management permit number 36-00184-S. Respondent CLDD shall, within 30 days of date of permitting, submit a design to the satisfaction of the SFWMD staff which will prevent the ability of CLDD to discharge to the southern rim ditch, described above. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Sarasota County Utilities should be issued a consumptive use permit to draw water from the 14 wells in issue here located in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for themanagement of water resources within its area of geographical jurisdiction. Included therein was the responsibility for the permitting of consumptive water use. The Respondent, Sarasota County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utilities division which is charged with meeting, among other things, the potable water needs of the residents of the County. Petitioners Wyatt S. Bishop and Joan Jones are both residents of Sarasota County and both draw their potable water from wells which utilize the aquifers pertinent to the wells for which the permit in issue here relate. Mr. Bishop lives approximately 7.5 miles north of the Carlton Reserve, the property on which the wells in issue are located, and Ms. Jones lives approximately 7 miles from the Reserve, but in a different direction. Sarasota County filed an application for a consumptive use permit with the District on January 28, 1987 requesting an average daily withdrawal of 10.71 million gallons per day, (mgd), and a peak monthly withdrawal of 15.55 mgd. This application, assigned number 208836.00, was, over the next three years, amended by the County four separate times. These amendments reflected revised water demand determinations and were submitted to provide additional information requested by the District. The District issued a preliminary staff report and proposed intent on March 26, 1991 reflecting an approved withdrawal in the amount of 7.28 mgd average daily withdrawal and 11.1 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. These figures were revised, however, byan amendment by the District on July 8, 1991, and as amended, authorize 7.303 mgd average daily withdrawal and 9.625 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. The County's application was reviewed by an experienced hydrologist in the District office with extensive permit review experience who utilized, in his evaluation of the permit, the pertinent District rules and policies. By way of background, to more easily understand the circumstances here, Sarasota entered into a contract with Manatee County in 1973 which called for the latter to provide up to 10 mgd of water for a period of 40 years, up to and including the year 2013. However, in 1979, Manatee County's utilities director advised Sarasota County that it, Sarasota County, could not continue to rely on Manatee County's water after the expiration of the current contract, and would, therefore, have to become self sufficient in water. Since the MacArthur tract, now known as the Carlton Reserve, had just recently been identified by, inter alia, the United States Geological Service as a potential long term water source for Sarasota County, after Manatee County advised Sarasota County of its future expectations, Sarasota County and the Manasota Basin Board hired a consulting firm to conduct hydrological testing on the Carlton Reserve. This study concluded that the Reserve had sufficient water resources to satisfy the needs of the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County for an extended time into the future. In 1985, because of its increased water needs and thetime necessary to complete required studies on the utilization of the Myakka River, a surface water resource, Sarasota County concluded that it was suffering a water supply shortage and entered into a supplemental contract with Manatee County to provide 2 million gallons of water per day over a 5 year period which would expire in 1990. Sarasota County had not, however, been idle with regard to the investigation of other water resources. Studies done included not only the Myakka River mentioned above but a reservoir owned by the City of Bradenton, and the Peace River. Nonetheless, it was determined that the Carlton Reserve was the best source available overall, and in 1987, the County filed the application in issue here. The permit was under consideration for approximately 3 1/2 years before the initial decision by the District to grant it. During that time the County experienced a significant deficiency in its water sources and found it necessary, on February 5, 1991, to enter into another contract with Manatee County to supply an addition 5 mgd. Terms of that contract clearly indicate the expectations of both parties that Sarasota County will take reasonable steps to develop its own water resources. It is not as though Sarasota County sat quietly in the interim, however, and allowed the situation to develop. A building moratorium to halt additional construction was proposed and as a result, economic forces in the County indicated a potential loss of jobs to County residents. None of this would be desirable from an economicstandpoint. In the course of the permit application process, 12 test wells were sunk to conduct aquifer pump tests; to assess water quality, amounts and availability, aquifer characteristics and drawdown; and to determine the impact of withdrawal on water quality. Eight of these 12 wells are located on the Carlton Reserve. The other 4 are located on property owned by the MacArthur Foundation which is contiguous to the Carlton Reserve property and from which Sarasota has a right by easement to draw water. The 2 wells yet to be constructed will be on Sarasota County property. Sarasota County currently receives 10 mgd of water under its contract with Manatee County; an additional 5 mgd under the February 5, 1991 contract; 2 mgd from the University wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 3 mgd); and .9 mgd from the Sorrento wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 1.1 mgd). This latter source is only producing currently .6 mgd of potable water due to constraints imposed by the water treatment requirements. Taken together, the current Sarasota County supply constitutes 18.6 mgd. The above does not take into account the County's agreement with the City of Sarasota calling for the purchase of up to 2 mgd. Since this source is not reliable, it is not included in the total, and the City is not considered an available water source. In addition, the District and Sarasota County stipulated on July 15, 1991 that within 30 days, the County would apply tophase out routine water production from the Sorrento wellfield, relying on it only in emergency situations with District consent. For this reason, it, too, is not considered an available water supply source. These currently existing sources, with modifications as described, will be the primary sources of potable water provided to 6 major service areas in Sarasota County when the County's water treatment plant and transmission system are complete in 1993. In attempting to define the County's future water requirements, two major criteria were considered. The first was the County's historical water demand, and the second, modifying it, relates to the demand arising as a result of new water users being added to the system as a result of the County's capital improvements and acquisition program. Water resources are not unlimited. Current resources come primarily from Manatee County and there are constraints on this supply as it is made available to Sarasota County. For example, the 10 mgd contract expires in 2013. The 5 mgd contract expires in 2001. Though the latter is subject to renewal, renewal is contingent upon the availability of water supply at that time, and that is not a sure thing. It can, therefore, readily be seen that 15 out of the 18.6 mgd routinely available now comes from Manatee County, and those sources are not perpetual. In addition, it is conceivable that Manatee County may pre-blend the water it delivers to Sarasota County with water of lesser quality, so that the delivered water may exceed the total dissolved solids standard of 500 ppm for potable water. If thewater from Manatee County were reduced to that quality, the University wellfield supply, which currently exceeds standards itself, and which relies on blending with better quality Manatee County water to be potable, would also be removed as a source of potable water to Sarasota County. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 373.171, Florida Statutes, which requires the District to regulate the use of water by apportionment, limitation, or rotating uses, to obtain the most beneficial use of water resources and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the District analyzed the available water sources and determined that Sarasota County relies upon its 10 mgd supply from Manatee County and the 2 mgd supply from University wellfield to constitute 12 mgd usable water. The 5 mgd from Manatee County would be used only in an emergency situation, and the Sorrento wellfield would be abandoned. Future water demands must be predicted relying in great part upon an historic record of prior water use. Utilizing a statistical procedure called linear regression, a methodology accepted by the District, indicated a water demand figure for the period from 1992 to 1997 based upon six use points extending from 1985 to 1990. These use records reflected a low of 9.733 mgd and a high of 12.808 mgd, the former being in 1985 and the latter in 1990. In addition, the County estimated that its capital improvement program would add between 10 and 12 thousand customers who presently use private wells, whose water use would constitute approximately 2 mgd of additional demand. The County's program toacquire some 42 private franchises now serving customers would add an additional demand of 2 mgd. Taken together, these programs would add in approximately 1.8 mgd per year to the need assessment, and it would therefore appear that by 1997, the County's average daily demand, considering all new users, would be 17.84 mgd. The water to be drawn from the Carlton Reserve is not currently potable and will require some form of treatment to render it so. Sarasota County proposes to use the Electrodialysis Reversal process, (EDR), because, in the County's judgement, it is more efficient than others such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Whereas EDR is rated at up to 85% efficient, the others range between 50% to 75% efficient. In that regard, in order to determine the maximum amount of water to be drawn, providing a safety factor for a treatment plant operation that is not working up to peak capacity in computing the water needs, the EDR process was determined to be no more than 80% efficient. Factoring in that efficiency potential, when the 1997 average daily demand is subtracted from the County's projected water capacity, the withdrawal need in 1997 is determined to be 7.303 mgd. However, as a part of its permitting process, the County also calculated its peak month daily demand. This is a figure which represents the maximum amount permitted to be drawn on a daily basis during the peak demand period. This peak period was determined under Section b 3.2 of the District's Basis of Review by taking the 1989 daily flow and using a sliding 31 day calendar to determine the highest historical 31 day flow. Thisresulted in a peak month coefficient of 6.16 which was then multiplied by the 1997 average daily demand of 17.842 mgd which resulted in a peak month daily demand of 20.7 mgd. When existing water supplies are removed and the 80% EDR treatment process factor is applied, the amount of raw water needed from the wellfield in issue on a peak monthly basis would be 9.625 mgd. This peak monthly basis figure is considered because of the intermittent periods of low rainfall and high water demand within the County. Accepting the 1.8 gpd yearly increase; the peak factor of 1.16; and the assumed water supply capacity of 18.6 mgd; Sarasota County's need will exceed its available supplies by 1993. In fact, the County is already experiencing low water pressure in part of its service area during peak demand periods. County experts estimate that without the requested water from the Carlton Tract, Sarasota County can expect to experience dry periods as early as 1993 during the periods of peak water usage, generally between April and June. For the above reason, when the application and its supporting information was reviewed by Mr. Basso, the District hydrologist with extensive experience reviewing more than 300 water use application, he determined that the water supplies requested are necessary to meet the County's certain reasonable demand, and that this meets the criteria set out in Rule 40D - 2.301(1)(a), F.A.C. Turning to the issue of hydrologic and environmental impacts, the District's Basis For Review of Water Permit Applications provides for the use of a "water use model" inevaluating water needs and the appropriateness of a proposed withdrawal. In preparing its submittal to the District, Sarasota County performed certain tests and modeling to derive the statistical and scientific information used in support of its application. Specifically it used the USGS' MODFLOW model utilizing information obtained from the pump tests run on the wells in the pertinent areas. Consistent with the District's rule, the water data and aquifer drawdown were determined by simulated pumping. The tests run also provided the information on water quality in the aquifer and physical characteristics including transmissivity, storage coefficient, specific yield and leakance between aquifers. This data also helped in defining the hydrogeologic framework of the Carlton Reserve. The Carlton Reserve's hydrogeology listed in descending order from the surface, includes a surficial aquifer which varies in depth between 19 and 70 feet across the Reserve; a semi-confining clay unit separating it from the intermediate aquifer; the upper intermediate and lower intermediate aquifer which range in depth from 140 to 180 feet across the Reserve; another confining layer, and the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers. The hydrology and groundwater modeling expert who constructed the model used in Sarasota County's permit application concluded that the water table drawdown at the Reserve property boundary in the surficial aquifer would be less than .3 of a foot; less than .4 of a foot in the intermediate aquifer; and 2.9 feet in the Upper Florida aquifer. The water to be drawn consistentwith this instant permit, if approved, would come from the Upper Floridan aquifer on the Reserve. The County's experts were conservative in the assumptions used in the groundwater model. It was assumed there would be no lateral water flow into the model area and no recharge. In addition, the model called for all pumps to run simultaneously at a maximum drawdown of 12.65 mgd for 90 days rather than at the requested quantity of 9.625 mgd. Utilization of these assumptions provided a scenario wherein "severe" impacts would be encountered. Based on the testing and the modeling done, expert opinion was that there would be no quantity or quality changes that would adversely effect water resources including ground and surface water. This meets the criteria of Rule 40D-2.301. This opinion was concurred in the District's hydrology expert. Nonetheless, in its proposed approval, the District has imposed special permitting conditions which require the County to monitor, analyze, and report water quality and water table level information to the District on a monthly and annual basis. When it evaluates the information supplied by an applicant relating to ground water monitoring, the District is required to consider certain presumptions set forth in its Basis For Review. For example, the District presumes that if there is a drawdown of more than 1 foot in the surficial aquifer at a wetland, adverse environmental impacts will occur. In the instant case, the County model concluded that the actual drawdown in the surficial aquifer at the Carlton Reserve is less than .6 of onefoot and, therefore, there should be no adverse environmental impact resulting from the withdrawal. Nonetheless, the County has developed several plans designed to provide information on environmental impacts which will continuously monitor such parameters as rainfall and evaporation, wetlands hydroperiod changes and vegetative changes in the wetlands to detect any changes which might be attributed to the water pumping. These plans have been made special conditions to the water use permit, and in the opinion of the County's ecology and hydrology expert, would enable the County to adequately monitor and detect any pertinent changes to the pertinent factors concerned on the Carlton Reserve. If wetland changes are detected, a contingency plan will be in effect which will require an alteration of pumping schedules or other action to minimize any adverse impacts. The District expert in wetlands and wildlife habitat has opined that these measures, with which he is familiar, are adequate to insure that adverse impacts to the wetlands will not occur. This is consistent with the provisions of Rule 40D-2.301(1). As was stated previously, the water to be drawn pursuant to this permit will be drawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This water is not potable but is treatable and is the lowest quality water which can be economically used by the County. Water of a lower quality does exist in the Lower Florida aquifer, but it is not economically treatable, and, in addition, use of this Lower Floridan aquifer might cause vertical movement of the poorer quality water into the upper strata. For all practical purposes,then, the lowest quality water available to it will be used by the County and this is consistent with the District's basis for review. Expert testimony indicates that saline water will not be infused into the Upper Floridan aquifer. Salt water intrusion generally occurs when groundwater is brought to a level below sea level. Even at the point of maximum actual drawdown as a result of pumping on the Reserve, the fresh water level will remain at least 20 feet above sea level, and as a result of the difference in water level, no saline water intrusion into the fresh water supply will occur even though salt water intrusion can also occur as a result of upward vertical movement of lower quality water due to withdrawal. The District's hydrologist and reviewing official also concluded that because of the confining layer below the aquifer from which water will be withdrawn, there would not be any significant upward movement of lesser quality water. The District's basis of review also envisions an aquifer pollution if a proposed withdrawal would spread an identified contamination plume. Here no contamination has been identified in the area from which the water will be drawn, and therefore, contamination would not be spread. The Basis for Review also infers there will be adverse impact to off site land if there is a significant drawdown of surface water bodies or if damage to crops or other vegetation can be expected. Here, the water table drawdown at the boundary of the Carlton Reserve is anticipated at less than .3 of one foot and any drawdown further out from the Reserve can be expected tobe even less. As a result, no adverse impact to existing off site land useage is expected. With regard to Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), relating to an adverse impact on existing legal uses, the District presumes that no adverse impact will exist if the drawdown in the water table is no more than 2 feet at an affected well, or the potentiometric surface at the well is not lowered by more than 5 feet. Here, again applying the County's groundwater modeling demonstrates that the drawdown at its worst, in the Upper Floridan aquifer, would be no more than 2.9 feet at the Reserve boundary and much less at the Petitioners' wells. Both Mr Bishop's and Ms. Jones' wells are approximately 7.5 and 7 miles, respectively, from the closest well on the Reserve property. Ms. Jones' well is drilled into the intermediate aquifer which is above that which the County proposes to use and should not be impacted. Mr. Bishop draws water from the intermediate and surficial aquifers, both of which are above the Upper Florida aquifer identified for use here, and the groundwater modeling would suggest that his well would not be impacted either. Sarasota County's application contains reference to numerous proposals for water conservation measures which it intends to implement or has already implemented. It has adopted ordinances to enforce the District's watering restrictions and is currently implementing a block inverted use rate structure to promote conservation. It has developed programs for use in the schools outlining water conservation efforts and is developing programs topromote the increased use of treated waste water for golf course irrigation. The requirement for a water conservation plan such as is described and envisioned by the County is a condition of the water use permit proposed, and in addition, the County has adopted an Ordinance, (90-38) which modifies its building code to require installation of water conservation devices in new buildings erected in the County. It has developed proposals for conservation measures such as water auditing, meter testing, leak detection, system looping, and pressure reduction, and has selected the EDR process of water purification as the most efficient use of groundwater resources. Petitioner, Bishop, testified to his belief that approval of this permit and the resultant water withdrawal on the Carlton Reserve would necessitate an expansion of the boundaries of the District's Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area to a point where his property would be encompassed therein. In support of his position, Mr. Bishop offered a notice to the effect that new ground water withdrawals would not be permitted within a certain "most impacted area" within the caution area. There was, however, no independent evidence from hydrologists, geologists, or other conservationists, or individuals familiar with the water conservation process, to support Mr. Bishop's contention that either the boundaries would be expanded or that withdrawal of the proposed permitted amounts of water from the Carlton Reserve would cause the boundaries to be expanded. By the same token, Mr. Bishop's contention that theproposed withdrawal from the wells here in issue would adversely effect his ability to draw water from his existing well was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence tending to support or confirm his contention. He had no evidence tending to contradict the County's and District's experts, all of whom indicated there would be no adverse impact on the environment or water resources as a result of the instant permit. Similarly, neither Petitioner offered any evidence of a demonstrative nature that would draw any connection between the proposed permitted withdrawals and potential salt water intrusion and water level drawdown in their wells. The County introduced construction permits issued by its own health department covering 8 of the 12 wells which have been drilled on the Carlton Reserve as test wells. These wells were clearly sunk pursuant to an agreement between the District and the County's public health unit which delegates authority for water well construction permitting to the County. Taken together the documentation indicates that these 12 wells on the Reserve were installed and permitted pursuant to and consistent with appropriate permitting processes, and the testimony of Mr. Bassarab, the County's expert who oversaw the installation of the wells, reflects they are appropriately grouted and sealed. Therefore, there will be no mixing of lower quality water from the lower portion of the Floridan aquifer with the better quality water from the upper portion of that aquifer. The County's evidence clearly refutes the allegation by Mr. Bishop that the 12 test wells currently existingon the Carlton Reserve were neither permitted nor inspected as required by the District. County Commissioner Hill, who testified on behalf of the Petitioners, indicated that the wells applied for here are unnecessary and an inappropriate expenditure of County funds. She claimed there are other valid sources of water available to the County, including that extracted from excavated shell pits and seawater from the Gulf of Mexico which could be treated and desalinated. The Commissioner's comments as to alternate sources are not specifically rebutted. However, she is neither an expert in hydrology or hydrogeology, and her testimony is not persuasive. While other water sources may exist, the better evidence clearly indicates that those sources are not sufficient to meet the County's needs or are otherwise inappropriate for use by the County in sufficient quantity to satisfy those needs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that consumptive water use permit No. 208836.00, providing for authorized quantities as outlined in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein, be issued to Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONERS: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 8. Resolved against the Petitioners on the basis information presented by Respondents. 9.- 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 23. Accepted. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted. & 27. Noted as citation of authority. Rejected. & 30. Accepted as restatements of evidence but not as Findings of Fact. 31. Irrelevant. 32. Rejected 33. & 34. Not a error is, in fact, it is such. 35. - 38. Irrelevant. 39. - 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45. Rejected. 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. & 48. Rejected as a mere citation of testimony. 49. Not understandable. Not a Finding of Fact. 50. Accepted. 51. Evidence is acceptable. 52. Not sufficiently specific to rule upon. 53. Not proven. 54. Not specific. 55. & 56. Rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein, - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted - not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. Not correct as stated. Sarasota County will not be withdrawing saline water from the upper Floridan aquifer. The remaining discussion is accepted. Accepted and utilized. & 54. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60. Accepted. 61 - 63. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 66. Not Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr. 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Joan Jones 719 East Baffin Road Venice, Florida 34293 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman, Herb, Causey & Dooley 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34237 Cathy Sellers, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 215 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 8, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health, including the county health departments such as the St. Lucie County Health Department ("County Health Department"), are responsible for supervising and controlling limited use public water systems. Section 381.0062(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Gorman is the owner of three duplexes located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; 140 and 142 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and 160 and 162 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida. The duplexes were built in 1982 and 1983 and each contains two units which are available for rent. Water is piped into each duplex from a well located on the property. The wells providing water to 120 and 122 Laidback Way and to 140 and 142 Laidback Way were inspected by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in May 1994 and found to be satisfactory pending results of water tests. Two-day bacteriological analyses were conducted on May 2 and 3, 1994, on the wells serving these two properties, and the results were satisfactory. 3/ The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 120 and 122 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 30-gallon "p tank"; a 20-gallon water softener filter; and a 30-gallon brine tank. The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 140 and 142 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 20-gallon "p. tank"; a 25-gallon water softener filter; and a 40-gallon brine tank. In a letter dated August 21, 1998, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he needed to submit the application enclosed with the letter and a $140.00 fee to bring the "permit" to current status for the property located at 140 and 142 Laidback Way. The letter was inartfully composed and conveyed incomplete information regarding the nature of the permit. The letter did, however, contain reference to "Chapter" 381.0062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-8, Florida Administrative Code, and it also provided notification that Chapter 64E-8 required quarterly sampling of limited use public water systems for bacteria and a lead and nitrate test every three years. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman an identical notice, dated August 21, 1998, regarding the property located at 160 and 162 Laidback Way. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman a somewhat different letter, dated August 31, 1998, regarding the "Limited Use Public Water Systems" for the property located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way. The letter notified Mr. Gorman that his permit to operate the "referenced water system has expired as of September 30, 1998." The letter reiterated the information contained in the August 21 letter and requested in addition that Mr. Gorman submit "a minimum 8.5 x 11 inch site plan of the system, drawn to scale, that accurately identifies the location of the source of water in relation to property boundaries and contaminant sources, i.e., well must be 75 feet from septic system, etc." and an "[e]quipment list: pump, tank, softener, automatic chlorinate, etc., manufacturer, model #, and capacity." Finally, Mr. Gorman was notified of the permitting and testing fees and told that the "[a]pplication with required site and equipment information must be submitted with necessary fees within 30 days receipt of this notification." Mr. Gorman responded with a letter dated October 16, 1998, in which he posed several questions to the County Health Department: Do you understand that these are duplexes? Are all rental properties including single family subject to these regulations? Can you give me a valid reason why rental units of two units or more should be subject to quarterly bacterial testing (I believe the statute only authorizes it annually) and not all other residential properties, public facilities or otherwise that might use well water? Mr. Gorman requested a response to his questions but did not provide the information, applications, and permit fees requested in the letters dated August 21 and August 31. In a letter dated December 14, 1998, sent certified mail with return receipt requested and referenced as a Notice of Violation, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he was operating limited use community public water systems without a permit at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162 Laidback Way and that he had not provided the following required information: Signed, dated application form. An operation permit fee of $75.00 for the initial permit. A site plan of the property that accurately identifies the location of the well in relation to property, boundaries and contaminant sources such as septic tank systems. Capacity/size, model and brand information on system components. Well completion report if available or year well was installed if known. Required chemical analysis results (lead and nitrate). Initial satisfactory two-day source (well) water and system water bacteriological tests results. Mr. Gorman was told to contact Bruce McLeod within five days of receipt of the notice. Although Mr. Gorman received the notice on December 16, 1998, he did not respond. The County Health Department had not, as of the final hearing, received any reports of illness attributable to the water from the wells at the subject properties, and it does not have any reason to believe that the wells are contaminated. Mr. Gorman had not, as of the final hearing, submitted the applications, permit fees, or information requested by the County Health Department, and he had no operating permits for the wells providing water to the subject properties. The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that the wells providing water to the three duplexes owned and rented by Mr. Gorman each contains two rental units and are limited use community public water systems. Mr. Gorman must have operating permits for the wells providing water to these properties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: Finding that Robert J. Gorman is guilty of three violations of Section 381.0062, Florida Statutes (1997), because he failed to obtain operating permits for the limited use community public water systems he maintains at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162, Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1500.00, or $500.00 for each of the three violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should be subject to civil penalties and required to submit a Compliance Plan for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and Order filed on January 8, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this enforcement action, Petitioner, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to assess civil penalties against, and require a compliance plan from, Respondents, Balm Associates, Inc. (Balm) and Goodson Farms, Inc. (Goodson), on the grounds that from March 1999 through July 2001 they made water withdrawals from certain property in Hillsborough County, Florida, without a water use permit, and after a permit was obtained in August 2001, they continued to exceed the annual average daily withdrawals authorized under the permit through the month of November 2001, or just prior to the preparation and issuance of the Administrative Complaint and Order (Complaint).1 While not denying that excessive pumpages may have occurred, and that a permit was not obtained until August 2001, Balm points out that it is the owner-lessor of the property and not the consumptive user of the water, and contends that the District has no authority to enforce its rules against, and recover civil penalties from, the non-user of the water. In its request for a hearing, Goodson did not specifically dispute the allegation that it consumed water without a permit, or exceeded the withdrawal limits under the new permit, but contended instead that the limits were unrealistic and should be modified. At the final hearing, however, Goodson disputed the accuracy of the water consumption figures used in the Complaint. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Balm is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is 2101 Huntington Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. It owns approximately 220 acres of land in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 21 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, which is the site of the alleged wrongdoing. Goodson is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 246, Balm, Florida 33503. Goodson is in the farming business and operates a total of 13 farms, including the farm at issue in this proceeding. Permit Requirements Under Rule 40D-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit is required whenever total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); annual average withdrawal from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd; or withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at the surface. Rule 40D-2.351(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a permittee must notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted water withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located. The same rule also provides that where a permit has been issued to a party whose ownership or legal control of the permitted water withdrawal facilities subsequently ends, the party who assumes control over the facilities may apply to transfer the permit to himself or herself up to the renewal date of the transferor's permit. Finally, Rule 40D-2.351(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that until a permit is transferred or a new permit is obtained, the party subsequently controlling the permitted water withdrawal facilities will be in violation of District rules for making withdrawals without the required permit. History of Permits on the Property On September 29, 1989, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 207135.001 (the .001 permit) to James Brown (Brown) and B & T Growers Partnership (B & T) for water withdrawals from one well for agricultural purposes on Balm's property. The .001 permit authorized annual average withdrawals of 102,000 gpd of groundwater for agricultural irrigation. On August 29, 1990, the District adopted new rules applicable to District permits within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA). The .001 permit was within the ETBWUCA, and Brown and B & T were provided with a Notice of Permit Modification and new Permit Conditions. The new conditions became effective November 15, 1990. New Condition No. 5 provided that By July 31, 1995, all permitted withdrawal points shall be equipped with totalizing flow meters or other measuring devices as approved in writing by the Director, Resource Regulation Department. Such devices shall have and maintain accuracy within five percent of the actual flow installed. On December 14, 1992, the District approved the transfer of the .001 permit from Brown and B & T to B. Kenda Produce. The Unpermitted Water Withdrawals On June 30, 1997, Goodson entered into a two-year agricultural lease with Balm to use a portion of the property, including acreage previously used by B. Kendra Produce. At the time the lease was entered into, neither Respondent applied to the District to have the .001 permit transferred from B. Kendra Produce. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that after the first lease expired, the parties continued to execute new lease agreements at least through the time of the hearing. The portion of the property which Goodson leased and farmed is referred to as the "Sweat Loop Farm" and consists of approximately 100 acres. There is one well with an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface located on the Sweat Loop Farm. The well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), which is over 1,000,000 gpd. Thus, withdrawals from the well required a water use permit. As noted earlier, Goodson operates a total of 13 farms on approximately 2,500 acres of land. There are approximately 15 wells on all 13 farms, including the Sweat Loop Farm. Michael E. Hare, an irrigation supervisor who is responsible for the irrigation of all 13 of Goodson's farms, installed a total of approximately 8 meters on the farms, including the meter on the Sweat Loop Farm. A totalizing flow meter, which was made by MiCrometer, was installed at the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Mr. Hare acknowledged that he was familiar with MiCrometer meters and would be aware if the MiCrometer flow meter on the Sweat Loop Farm was not functioning properly. Whenever metering devices on the various Goodson farms have malfunctioned in the past, Mr. Hare has taken the malfunctioning meter to a metering company to be fixed. Goodson began irrigating the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Since that time, Goodson has been the sole water user of the well on the farm. In March 1999, Goodson began submitting to the District monthly pumpage reports for the groundwater withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm. Although some unmeasured withdrawals presumably occurred prior to March 1999, the Complaint does not identify these as being a violation. Mr. Hare and other supervisors are responsible for collecting the meter readings which go on the monthly pumpage reports and providing them to the District. The information on the reports includes the permit number; the last month's meter reading; the current month's meter reading; the total gallons of water pumped for the current month; the meter total; and the meter factor. To determine the average daily withdrawal on the Sweat Loop Farm, the District relied upon the calculations provided by Goodson as to the total gallons of water pumped for the month and divided this number by 30 days. From March 1999 through July 2001, these quantities were as follows: MONTH/YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE March 1999 April 1999 531,487 No data available May 1999 364,930 June 1999 0 July 1999 0 August 1999 57,410 September 1999 49,563 October 1999 222,667 November 1999 250,667 December 1999 755,003 January 2000 689,433 February 2000 695,073 March 2000 544,427 April 2000 305,153 May 2000 597,720 June 2000 0 July 2000 62,120 August 2000 86,370 September 2000 123,233 October 2000 602,020 November 2000 409,550 December 2000 145,823 January 2001 957,690 February 2001 890,213 March 2001 391,280 April 2001 467,640 May 2001 617,177 June 2001 0 July 2001 0 Under Rule 40D-2.041(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit was required for Goodson's withdrawals since the well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gpm, which is greater than 1,000,000 gpd; the annual average withdrawals exceeded 100,000 gpd; and the well has an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface. The withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm were not authorized by the .001 permit since neither Goodson or Balm was a permittee under the permit. Even if Goodson could rely on the permit, which it cannot, pumpage data provided by Goodson reflects that the water withdrawals (except for nine months) were in excess of that authorized by the permit. On June 16, 2000, the District mailed a Notice of Non-Compliance for excessive water withdrawals to Goodson. The Notice indicated that if the pumpage values submitted by Goodson were incorrect, Goodson was to explain the error and provide corrected quantities. On June 26, 2000, the District received a written response to the Notice of Non-Compliance from the superintendent of the Sweat Loop Farm who indicated that the pumpage values were correct, and that the excess usage was due to a "serious drought condition" which had caused a "significant financial hardship on [the] farm." The response also indicated that Goodson would contact Mr. Haftel, owner of Balm, to request that he "revise the water use permit for spring crops." On November 22, 2000, the District mailed Goodson a Notice of Violation indicating that the quantities authorized by the .001 permit were still being exceeded and that the District might seek monetary penalties if Goodson failed to come into compliance within 30 days. Despite the foregoing Notice, Goodson continued to make withdrawals without a permit and in excess of the quantities formerly authorized under the .001 permit until August 2001 when a new permit was finally obtained. Issuance of a New Water Use Permit On January 2, 2001, the District received an application for a General Water Use Permit seeking to modify the .001 permit to increase the withdrawal quantities and to transfer the permit from B. Kendra Produce to Balm. "Seymour Haftel/ Balm Associates, Inc." was listed as the applicant, and "Donn Goodson" from " Goodson Farms" was listed as the contact or consultant. Mr. Haftel signed the application on behalf of Balm. Goodson assisted Balm in securing the permit for the Sweat Loop Farm because Goodson wanted more water for irrigation purposes. Section 2.1 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application, adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40D-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]pplications for leased property, except property leased from the District, must be either a joint application in the name of the lessee and the property owner(s) or be only in the name of the property owner(s)." In a Request for Additional Information mailed to Balm on January 29, 2001, the District asked whether Goodson should be listed as co-applicant on the application. On April 27, 2001, Balm submitted a response which indicated that Goodson should not be listed as co-applicant. On August 6, 2001, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 200007135.002 (the .002 permit) to Seymour Haftel/Balm Associates, Inc. authorizing an increase in the annual average withdrawals to 224,300 gpd. The permit had an expiration date of September 29, 2009. The permit contained a number of special conditions, none of which were challenged by Balm. Unauthorized Withdrawals Under the .002 Permit Special Condition No. 2 of the .002 permit requires in part that the permittee: continue to maintain and operate the existing non-resettable, totalizing flow meter(s), or other flow measuring device(s) as approved by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation, for District ID No(s), Permittee ID No(s)[,] G-1. Such device(s) shall maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total withdrawal and meter readings from each metered withdrawal shall be recorded on a monthly basis and reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department, (using District forms) on or before the tenth day of the following month. In the event a permittee chooses not to use a totalizing flow meter, as required by Special Condition No. 2, the District will review information provided by the measuring device's manufacturer to determine if the measuring device would maintain a five percent accuracy as required by the Condition. The meters have to be monitored and calibrated periodically for accuracy. It is the permittee's responsibility to comply with the conditions of the permit, including Special Condition No. 2, which requires the submittal of accurate pumpage reports. Goodson submitted the meter readings on behalf of Balm beginning in September 2001, which covered the withdrawals for the month of August 2001. The District relied on the meter readings submitted by Goodson to determine the annual average daily pumpage calculation for the .002 permit. The calculation is a running 12-month average, whereby each month the annual average daily quantity is recalculated based on the previous 12-month pumpage. The running annual average daily pumpage and percentage of pumpage which exceeded the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002 are as follows: MONTH/YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE PERCENTAGE OVERPUMPED August 2001 378,462 69 percent September 2001 382,622 71 percent October 2001 376,687 68 percent November 2001 383,008 71 percent December 2001 379,212 69 percent January 2002 327,343 46 percent February 2002 321,530 43 percent March 2002 350,701 56 percent April 2002 356,013 59 percent May 2002 338,131 51 percent As the foregoing data reflects, the withdrawals from the Sweat Loop Farm were in excess of that authorized by the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Respondents are guilty of the charges in its Administrative Complaint and Order except as concluded in paragraph 48 above and endnote 2 below; that Respondents be required to submit an acceptable written plan (Compliance Plan) to the District for its consideration and approval within fourteen days after entry of the final order; that the Compliance Plan describe how Respondents shall achieve full compliance with the .002 permit; that the Compliance Plan include reductions in withdrawals, water conservation measures, and development and utilization of alternative resources; that the Compliance Plan establish deadlines for implementation and completion of corrective actions; that full compliance be achieved within 120 days after entry of the final order; and that any failure of Respondents to comply with any provision of the Compliance Plan shall constitute a violation of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether WRP, Inc.'s application for an Individual Water Use Permit to construct five 24-inch diameter wells in Walton County, Florida, and to withdraw an average of 4.84 million gallons per day for twenty years, should be issued, as proposed by the agency on June 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Northwest Florida Water Management District (District), is an independent special district of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 373.069, Florida Statutes. The District is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen-county area in Northwest Florida, including all of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Respondent, WRP, Inc. (WRP), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with its headquarters in Walton County, Florida. It is jointly owned by Destin Water Users, Inc. (DWU) and South Walton Utility Company, Inc. (SWUC). Both DWU and SWUC are not- for-profit Florida corporations that own and operate water supply systems (with thirteen operating wells) in and around the southern portions of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Established in 1995, WRP was originally organized as a partnership made up of DWU, SWUC, and Petitioner, Florida Community Services Corporation of Walton County, d/b/a Regional Utilities of Walton County (RU). This partnership was established for the purpose of cooperating in the development of an alternate water supply for the utilities' service areas. Thereafter, the partnership was dissolved, which led to the establishment of WRP. RU is no longer a part of this organization. Petitioner, City of DeFuniak Springs, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida. The city owns and operates its own public water supply system. At the present time, it serves approximately 15,200 persons who reside both inside and outside the corporate limits of the city. Petitioner, City of Freeport, is a municipal corporation in Walton County, Florida, and owns and operates its own public water supply utility. RU is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which, pursuant to a lease, operates a public water supply system in the coastal area of Walton County under a permit issued by the District. It presently serves around 500 customers representing a population of 17,000. A portion of its water supply is also obtained from the City of Freeport. Petitioner, Walton County (County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution. The County owns the land and facilities used by RU for its public water supply system. However, under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. In addition, the County also owns a small well recently constructed near the Rock Hill area. Historical Background of the Area's Water Supply The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for all citizens the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. It also seeks to allocate the resource in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. This is often referred to as the three prong test. Ground water is measured by the location of its potentiometric surface in relation to sea level. The potentiometric surface is the level to which water will rise in a tightly cased well. In portions of coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties, the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer is below sea level. At one coastal location the surface is at 110 feet below sea level as compared to elevations of more than 200 feet above sea level in the northern portions of those counties. When the potentiometric surface is below sea level it is called a cone of depression. As shown on District Exhibit 1, the cone of depression in the coastal area of Okaloosa and Walton Counties has grown from 1974 to 1995. The decline of these water levels in the coastal areas is further supported by the hydrographs found on the District's Exhibit 2 entitled Floridan Aquifer System Water Level Trends. These hydrographs document the reduction in the potentiometric surface over time. Of particular significance are the hydrographs of the "Okaloosa School Board" well which show the potentiometric surface to be 60 feet above sea level in the late 1930's when it was constructed and to be approximately 110 feet below sea level in 1996. As early as 1982, the District recognized a threat to the continued existence of a long-term sustainable water supply for the coastal regions of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. Significantly, the pumping of water from the Floridan Aquifer in this coastal region has caused a degradation to the aquifer and the water resources. As a result, the District began taking affirmative steps to protect the water resources in the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. In 1982, the District undertook a regional water supply development plan entitled 1982 Regional Water Supply Development Plan (the 1982 Plan). The 1982 Plan assessed the sustainability of water resources in the coastal region of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, estimated the Floridan Aquifer's water supply capabilities in relation to expected long-term water demand, and addressed the need to find an alternative long-term water supply for these coastal regions. The 1982 Plan also discussed strategies for alternate water resource development including inland well fields, desalinization, conservation measures, and use of surface water from the Choctawhatchee River. In 1988, the District developed an addendum to the 1982 Plan, known as the 1988 Plan, which addressed similar issues. In particular, the 1988 Plan further emphasized the need for the coastal water utilities of DWU, SWUC, and RU to use inland well fields and/or desalinization as potential alternatives for the long-term water supply needs of the area. The 1988 Plan eliminated surface water from the Choctawhatchee River as a potential alternate source for the long-term water supply needs of the area because it was not technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. The thrust of these two studies is to encourage movement of withdrawals away from coastal areas. In 1989, the District implemented Rule 40A-2.801, Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes the declaration of areas of the District as "water resource caution areas." In that same year the District adopted Rule 40A-2.802(1), Florida Administrative Code, which designates the coastal area of Walton and Okaloosa Counties as a water resource caution area. This designation means that the water resources of the coastal area are limited and will not be sufficient to meet the water needs of the area within a period of twenty years. In addition, the rule prohibits non-potable uses of the Floridan Aquifer as against the public interest. Since 1989, the District has worked with DWU, SWUC, and other coastal water supply utilities to expedite the development of alternate water sources and implement water conservation measures. In Okaloosa County, the District has placed limitations on the diameters of wells and the amount of water that can be withdrawn from coastal wells. To promote conservation of water, the District has imposed stricter requirements for the reuse of wastewater; promoted the adoption by coastal utilities of inverted rate structures; required that utilities implement retrofit programs to replace old water fixtures with more efficient water-saving devices; required that utilities account for losses due to system leakage; required that utilities provide for education programs and public service announcements on the need to conserve water; and encouraged utilities to seek adoption of water efficiency landscape and irrigation ordinance by the appropriate local governments. The measures taken by the District are intended to address the harmful impacts to the Floridan Aquifer caused by increasing coastal water withdrawals. Because the District has determined that the water resources are limited, the District has mandated that alternative water supplies must be identified and developed in order to provide for a sustainable and long-term source of potable water in the coastal areas of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. There is no evidence to refute the District's concerns regarding the impact of continued coastal withdrawal and the need to find an alternative source of potable water to meet the region's long term demands. Based on the evidence, it is clear that coastal withdrawals of ground water cannot continue and that an alternate source of water must be found to meet the long-term water demands of the coastal areas of Walton and Okaloosa Counties. The Application In July 1996, WRP submitted a Consumptive Use Permit Application (CUPA) for the withdrawal of water from an inland wellfield in Walton County. The CUPA requested a maximum withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from two production wells with additional wells to be constructed on an as needed basis. The original application placed the wells along Highway 20 in the vicinity of the City of Freeport, or some twenty miles north of its present wellfields. This location concerned the District because of its proximity to the Choctawhatchee Bay and the saltwater/freshwater interface. In response to the District's concerns, WRP relocated the proposed wellfield farther north and inland to a 4,900 acre site approximately five miles north of the City of Freeport, known as the Rock Hill site. Under the proposed permit, WRP may withdraw an average of 4.84 mgd from the Floridan Aquifer from five 24-inch diameter wells. All withdrawals of water are authorized solely for public supply use. The proposed permit also authorizes a combined monthly withdrawal limit of 150,040,000 gallons. The permit is issued for a twenty-year period and has an expiration date of June 26, 2018. The proposed permit contains numerous conditions to issuance. They are primarily intended to implement water conservation and efficiency measures as well as monitor and mitigate any impacts to the Floridan Aquifer and existing legal users caused by the permitted water withdrawals. Compliance with Permitting Standards The District's overall responsibility in the consumptive use program is to provide for the sustainability of the water resources of Northwest Florida. In allocating water resources, the District seeks to do so in a manner that is reasonable and beneficial, that is in the public interest, and that will not interfere with the use associated with other existing legal users. WRP's compliance with these broad standards will be discussed in detail below. Reasonable and Beneficial Use of the Water In determining whether a water use is reasonable and beneficial, the District must consider the criteria set forth in Rule 62-40.410(2)(a)-(r), Florida Administrative Code. Quantity of Water Requested [62-40.410(2)(a)] In its original application, WRP requested withdrawals of 7.2 mgd. Because of the District's concern that the amount of withdrawals and projected annual rate of growth were too great, the permitted amount has been revised downward to 4.84 mgd. This quantity is not excessive, and the actual pumping under the permit will be less than the amount modeled for evaluation of impacts. Demonstrated Need [62-40.410.(2)(b)] The current water source for both DWU and SWUC is coastal Walton and Okaloosa Counties. That source is insufficient for future needs, and the demand placed on that resource should be reduced. As noted above, the need for coastal areas to develop an alternative wellfield was recognized by the District as early as 1982. This finding was reconfirmed in a District study completed in 1988. The record supports a finding that WRP has shown a demonstrated need for the alternative site. Suitability and Value of Use [62-40.410(2)(c) and (d)] WRP is requesting a withdrawal of water for public supply. This type of use within the Rock Hill area is a suitable use of that resource. Also, the Rock Hill area has long been identified as a good location for an inland wellfield. The suitability of the use to the source of water is demonstrated by the high quality of the raw water which can be easily treated for potable drinking water. The purpose is for domestic consumption, which is the highest use. The proposed wellfield is the closest available inland groundwater source with minimal impact. In terms of value, WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer to provide the public with drinking water. The provision of a long-term, reliable source of water is a high value. It also helps to sustain the resource in coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties by reducing future demands on the source. The Extent and Amount of Harm Caused [62-40.410(2)(e)] The evidence establishes that neither the resource nor the existing legal users will be harmed by the proposed activity. Harm would occur, for example, when a domestic user would be permanently denied water as a result of a proposed pumping activity. Although this condition should not occur, the permit contains conditions to mitigate this event. WRP conducted a test well program and extensive groundwater modeling at its proposed wellfield to establish the drawdown curve that would exist in the Floridan Aquifer. The extent and amount of harm caused is not significant, and WRP has demonstrated that there will be no significant environmental impact or impact to other users. There will not be any drawdown impacts in the surficial aquifer, nor should there be any discernible impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Drawdowns as a result of WRP pumping in the potentiometric surface in the Freeport area are expected to be two feet in the year 2005, and around five feet in the year 2018. These are not considered significant drawdowns for a public supply well. Under the proposed permit, WRP will be required to mitigate any impacts attributable to its withdrawal that interfere with domestic users in the vicinity of the wellfield. Any problems encountered in domestic wells in the area can be remedied by adding a length of pipe, or lowering the pumps in the wells. The water resource will not be significantly impacted by saltwater intrusion as a result of the proposed use. The greatest part of the advance of the saltwater wedge is due to the City of Freeport's own pumping; WRP's contribution to the advance is minimal. This is because the City of Freeport is closer to the coast. Any impacts on wells within the City of Freeport from chlorides will be the result of their own pumping, and not that of WRP's proposed pumping. Mitigation of Harm [62-40.410(2)(f)] The District does not anticipate that any harm to other legal users will occur. Even assuming arguendo that some harm might occur, there are two conditions in the permit that can be invoked to ensure that the issues are addressed. Standard Condition 11 entitles the District to curtail permitted withdrawal rates if such withdrawal causes significant adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water, or adjacent use, while Special Condition 17 requires that WRP mitigate any impacts to existing legal users if such interference should occur. The District envisions the latter condition to be implemented through a telephone hotline and arrangements with a water well contractor to remedy any adverse impact. To the extent that any harm to area domestic wells may occur, WRP has agreed to correct any individual adverse impacts by either lowering the pump, deepening the well, replacing the well, or whatever may be necessary. This is consistent with Special Condition 17, which requires that WRP mitigate impacts attributable to its withdrawal which interfere with users of water in the vicinity of their wellfield. Finally, the proposed permit has a system of checks and balances by which the District can look at actual water uses over time and adjust them while still providing for coastal reductions. Impacts on Other Lands [62-40.410(2)(g)] Although WRP purchased approximately five thousand acres on which to site its wellfield, not all of the property is necessary to run the wellfield. The parcel was purchased so that any adverse effects from the pumping would not affect landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would be confined to the purchased property. The test well program conducted at the remote wellfield, and the modeling conducted by WRP Witness Maimone, establish that the greatest impacts will be on lands owned and controlled by WRP. Method and Efficiency of Use [62-40.410(2)(h)] The method and efficiency of use by WRP is demonstrated by its utilization of water conservation measures to ensure that efficiency is maximized throughout the system. The use of ground water from the inland wellfield is an efficient method of providing potable water for public supply. Water Conservation Measures [62-40.410(2)(i)] The District has mandated that certain conservation steps be taken to protect the resource in the Okaloosa and Walton County area. This is consistent with the District's efforts to require implementation of conservation measures by coastal water supply utilities. Reuse of treated wastewater has been encouraged, and it is used to irrigate golf courses and private landscapes. Also, the District is requiring DWU and SWUP to account for and correct water losses, and to undertake retrofit programs among homeowners and commercial establishments to install water-saving devices and other types of efficiency measures. Except on rare occasions, all DWU treated effluent is used for irrigation. Indeed, DWU is currently achieving a 100 percent reuse rate. Reuse water currently supplied to customers of DWU is not available for aquifer storage. As part of a general conservation effort, DWU has replaced almost 6,000 water meters in the last five years. The City of Destin, which is within DWU's service area, has distributed low-usage shower heads, and it has implemented a low volume toilet ordinance which requires these types of fixtures in all new construction. Currently, DWU has a 12 percent water loss and is attempting to meet the District's recommended goal of 10 percent. SWUC has various programs in place to conserve potable water. The conservation methods include an inverted block structure, reuse, and public education. Currently, SWUC provides reuse irrigation water to golf courses and a subdivision. The evidence supports a finding that the water use proposed by WRP will not be wasteful. Conditions 3 through 12 in the permit require WRP to implement a comprehensive series of water conservation and efficiency measures. Without the new wellfield, it would be impossible to conserve a sufficient amount of water to be able to provide for the future needs of the citizens to be served by WRP. The District will require WRP to comply with a comprehensive water conservation and efficiency program. The conservation and efficiency program includes implementation of a retrofit program, reduction of unaccounted for losses to less than ten percent, five-year audits, landscape ordinances, and irrigation ordinances. Feasibility of Other Sources [62-40.410(2)(j)] The District has identified no available surface water body from which WRP could meet its anticipated demands. In 1988, the Choctawhatchee River was determined not to be a feasible source. Additionally, the Sand and Gravel Aquifer is not suitable for a large, public supply utility to access. In 1982, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) was projected to be a location for regional wellfields. The 1988 Plan, however, removed Eglin as a possible solution for long-term water supply problems due to Eglin's decision not to allow wells on the reservation. SWUC, DWU, and WRP all produced water masterplans in order to identify options available to address the additional water supply needs in the area. Upon its formation, WRP undertook an investigation to determine whether additional water supplies could be provided best by a remote wellfield or by a reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The study was undertaken because the the available water supply clearly would be insufficient and other options should be considered. After being formed, WRP immediately purchased options from the Champion Paper Company for six well sites along Highway 20. At considerable expense, WRP investigated the RO alternative as a water supply source along with other alternative sources such as reclaimed water, stormwater, brackish water, and saltwater. WRP constructed a RO test well to evaluate that option. The test well extended into the Lower Floridan Aquifer since that aquifer was considered as a possible source of brackish water from which potable water could be produced. The District provided a $30,000 grant toward the RO evaluation, and it also provided technical assistance and guidance to ensure that WRP obtained the type of data that the District desired. Assumptions made in evaluating the cost of the RO option were designed to predict the lowest possible construction and operating costs. Also, a number of problems were identified with the RO process. These included long-term water quality, contamination, and disposal of the waste (reject water) produced. These concerns are addressed separately below. The potential for long-term change in water quality is the most important factor in evaluating the feasibility of the RO option. WRP's test well showed chlorides at 1,800 parts per million; 200 feet below that, the test well was half seawater; and at another 200 feet below, the test well was full of seawater. These results indicated that saltwater upconing was a severe concern. The data strongly indicated that water quality would not remain constant for very long in the RO well. An analysis made by WRP estimated that saltwater upconing would occur in less than a year and probably within a matter of months. The analysis considered only vertical movement for upconing within the RO test well, and it did not consider the effects of horizontal movement. These assumptions produce the most reliable result possible. The possibility of lateral movement is an additional risk to the water quality in the RO test well. Together with the potential for upconing shown in the study conducted by WRP, a great amount of uncertainty existed in the raw water source in terms of long-term stability and water quality. If seawater occurred within the aquifer at some close proximity to the RO test well, then ultimately the whole system could convert from brackish water to a seawater system. This would change the entire economics of the treatment process and plant design, and it would diminish WRP's ability to obtain a concentrate disposal permit. Without some certainty as to the quality of water over time, RO is not a viable alternative. The data summarized in WRP's report demonstrates that copper values in excess of 2.9 micrograms per liter (mcg/l) were present in the water withdrawn from the well. Samples taken directly from the Lower Floridan Aquifer using the Packard Stem Test indicated that the copper came from the aquifer formation. The established water quality standard for copper in Class II waters is 2.9 mcg/l. As noted above, this standard would be violated. The concentrate or reject water from the RO process utilizing the subject source would be expected to contain five times the copper concentration of the raw water. In addition to this concern, gross alpha, Radium 226, and Radium 228 were also present in grab samples and constituted another potential problem. These types of contamination render the RO option unfeasible because of problems with disposal of the concentrate or reject water. A RO option necessarily includes a brine disposal element. The disposal would be in the form of a reject stream that would be continuously discharged from the RO facility while in operation. The concentrate from the RO process is classified as an industrial waste. In Florida, the method for disposal for the reject water includes deep well injection and surface water disposal. However, the deep well injection of reject concentrate is not feasible for the RO well because the Lower Floridan Aquifer has no internal confinement between the zone of withdrawal and a proposed zone of injection. Moreover, there is no zone in Northwest Florida sufficient to be used for this type of injection in these volumes. The only other remaining option would be surface water discharge which requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Any surface water discharge with respect to RO would be to Class II waters, which would be far more difficult to permit than a Class III water, where such discharges have normally occurred. In addition, because of the high level of copper in the reject concentrate, it would be extremely difficult to receive a mixing zone for copper at the extended concentrations. Since 1982, the District has recommended that an inland wellfield be developed in the area north of the City of Freeport. An inland wellfield is a more reliable source of water with a greater amount of certainty, can be permitted within a reasonable period of time, and is less expensive. WRP's proposal for a remote, inland well in the Rock Hill area is consistent with these goals. Present and Projected Demand for Water [62-40.410(2)(k)] The District relied upon two studies to reach the conclusion that the average growth rate for water would be three percent per year in WRP's service area. This contrasts with WRP's projection that a five percent growth rate would be more accurate. Due to the high degree of uncertainty in the area of growth and water demand, the District has provided a mechanism to deal with underestimated growth which includes periodic review of the withdrawal amounts by the District and corresponding adjustments, if necessary. It is clear that the supply of water is adequate to provide water for WRP as well as other users in the area. Long-Term Yield Available from the Source of Water and Water Quality Degradation [62-40.410(2)(l) and (m)] Sufficient water resources exist in the Rock Hill area to meet projected water demands through the year 2018. No impact to the surficial aquifer is expected, while only minimal impact to nearby surface water is projected to occur. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not a factor. For some fifteen years, the District has taken steps to monitor and reduce coastal well withdrawals. More recently, it directed its staff to notify all existing non-potable users of the Floridan Aquifer that at the time of permit renewal, they may be required to find alternate sources. Starting two years ago, a number of these permits came up for renewal. In some cases, the applicants were given approximately two years to eliminate the Floridan Aquifer withdrawals, find an alternate source, and plug their wells. The potential for water quality degradation is evaluated through computer modeling. A modeling plan is a document that describes the approach that a modeler is going to use to build a model. It specifies the various components of the model, battery conditions, modeling techniques, model domain, and the modeler's conceptualization of the stratigraphy. WRP's model demonstrates a lack of degradation of the water resources. The modeling of the saltwater wedge indicates that the wells in the Freeport area will not be threatened. There will be negligible impacts to base stream and river flow and no impact to surface wetlands. Based on the present and projected demand for the source of water, no significant impact to the environment or to existing users will occur. To the extent water quality degradation might occur, it will cause a minimal amount of change in the position of the diffused chlorides in the coastal zone. The predicted impacts to water quality take into consideration the coastal reductions which will limit pumping of the coastal wells and switch withdrawals to the alternate inland source. Proposed Flood Damage [62-40.410(2)(n)] There is no indication that WRP's proposed withdrawal activity will cause any flood damage. The proposed use will not cause or contribute to flood damage due to its negligible affect on surface waters. Significant Inducement of Saltwater Intrusion [62-40.410(2)(o)] WRP's coastal saltwater intrusion model used worst case conditions when estimating the movement of the saltwater wedge. Indeed, the saltwater intrusion was computed so conservatively that the existing coastal wells were modeled pumping saltwater instead of the actual freshwater that they currently pump. The movement of the saltwater wedge is not projected to be dramatic over the next 50 years. The location of the saltwater wedge in the year 2050 would still be 600 feet below sea level. The wedge does not approach, nor would it threaten, the City of Freeport's wells. In fact, any potential risk of saltwater contamination in Freeport's wells is due to that City's current pumping rates. The Amount of Water Which Can be Withdrawn [62-40.410(2)(p)] The amount of water withdrawn by WRP will have no significant impact on the resource. This finding is supported by a WRP groundwater modeling study. The impacts of the wellfield on the potentiometric surface do not go below sea level. There will be no drawdown impact in the surficial aquifer or any discernable impact on the Floridan Aquifer. Adverse Effect on Public Health [62-40.410(2)(q)] No potential adverse effects on public health have been identified in the instant case, and there is no indication that WRP's withdrawals would affect public health. The resource is a high-quality use and would provide the public with a high-quality source of water for drinking purposes. Significant Effects on Natural Systems [62-40.410(2)(r)] The evidence established that there will be no impacts to surface wetlands and very minimal impacts to base stream flow. Base flow is the constant flow from groundwater into surrounding waters. Any reduction in the flow of groundwater to the Choctawhatchee River as a result of WRP pumping is negligible. Slight impacts were observed in the base flow of streams close to the proposed wellfield site. Impacts on the surface water are also minimal. Riparian wetlands would be unaffected by the water level decline that was simulated as a result of WRP pumping. Finally, any impacts associated with the construction of the transmission pipeline from the inland wellfield are temporary in nature and extend only through the period of construction. Consistent with the Public Interest The evidence demonstrates that the use of the water by WRP, as well as the water use reduction allocation, is consistent with the public interest. WRP is proposing to withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer in the Rock Hill area to provide citizens with drinking water. The purpose of domestic consumption is the highest and best use of a water resource. The public interest is served through the proposed reduction in coastal groundwater withdrawals contained in the WRP permit. Reduction in the withdrawals from the coastal areas has been a long-term goal of the District in order to protect water resources in the area. WRP's proposed use is also consistent with the public interest in that the use will not affect natural systems in the area. Similarly, the use proposed by WRP is consistent with regional water supply planning needs. Finally, the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive planning goals of Walton County as expressed in its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR commends WRP's efforts to fully analyze the alternative sources and its selection of the Rock Hill area on which to site a remote wellfield. Non-Interference with Existing Legal Users WRP purchased 5,000 acres on which to site its wellfield so that pumping from the well sites would not adversely affect adjacent landowners, and the majority of the drawdown would basically be confined to the property. Pertinent District rules only require that an applicant consider existing legal uses of water. However, WRP considered all existing legal uses of water and their future increases until the year 2018, and these existing and potential impacts were considered in its groundwater model. Even with the anticipated pumpage in the year 2018, the potentiometric surface at the WRP wellfield site location will not be drawn below sea level. The water level drawdowns associated with the withdrawal do not constitute a harm, they can be remedied, and the permit has been conditioned to provide for those remedies. For example, Standard Condition 11 and Specific Condition 17 provide protection to domestic wells users in the area. They should specifically address the legitimate concerns of public witnesses who testified at hearing. The Local Sources First Statutory Provision Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1998), also known as the local sources first statutory provision, enumerates a number of factors which the District must consider when evaluating whether a proposed use of water is consistent with the public interest. However, the law provided that water use permit applications pending with the District as of April 1, 1998, were exempted. The legislation was not enacted until October 1, 1998, and the notice of proposed agency action on the instant permit was issued in June 1998. Therefore, the District took the position that the legislation does not apply to the WRP permit. In an abundance of caution, however, the District reviewed the application as if the local sources first exception applied, and then again as if the exception did not apply. Under either scenario, the District concluded that the application met the criteria enumerated by the law. Assuming arguendo that the new law applies, WRP has met all criteria necessary for the issuance of a permit. The proposed wellfield site is the best suitable site to move water withdrawals inland away from the coastal area, and other locations closer to the coast would have resulted in interference and impacts; there are no other impoundments in the vicinity of the proposed wellfield site that are technically and economically feasible for the proposed use; there are no economically and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed source; there are no potential environmental impacts from the wellfields; there are no adequate existing sources of water available on the peninsula; the District has had numerous interactions with area local governments; and the District did not allow WRP's investment in 4,900 acres of land to influence its decision. Standing The only alleged basis for standing which went to fact finding at hearing was an allegation in paragraph (5)(a) of the Petition that "[t]he withdrawal of up to 4.8 million gallons per day of groundwater by WRP will adversely impact the quantity and quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by Petitioners." As to RU, which currently serves 500 customers representing a population of 17,000, it has no wells in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfield; its wellfields are located along the coastal area of Highway 30-A from Santa Rosa Beach to the east of Inlet Beach, on the Bay County line, or some twenty- five to thirty miles south of the proposed wellfield. It also purchases 500,000 gallons of water per day from the City of Freeport to meet its customers' demand. Because of RU's own continued pumping, at least four of its coastal wells are "going bad" due to saltwater intrusion and upconing. This condition will continue to occur even if WRP's application is not granted. Although it has a permit application for new inland wellfields pending with the District, at the time of hearing the application was incomplete and is therefore irrelevant to a standing determination. There was no direct evidence that RU's coastal wellfields will be adversely affected by WRP's proposed operation. Indeed, the projected decline in water levels in that area will be less than one foot and will have a de minimus impact. As to Walton County, it owns the land on which RU's coastal wells are located as well as the production facilities. Under a lease agreement between those parties, RU operates the system. The County also had one small exempt well in the vicinity of WRP's proposed wellfields which was installed after this case was filed, but shortly before the hearing began. There was no evidence as to the depth of the well, the source of water, or the well's pumping capacity. Likewise, there was no evidence that the well has actually been used. In addition, there was no evidence that the County relies on groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer to supply potable water to its citizens or customers, or that WRP's proposed withdrawal will adversely impact the quantity or quality of groundwater available for withdrawal by the County. As to the City of DeFuniak Springs, it operates its own public water supply system serving approximately 17,200 persons. It has four water supply wells located approximately nine miles north of WRP's proposed wellfields, and upstream from WRP's site. WRP's model predicts that the City's wellfields will be impacted, albeit very slightly, by WRP's pumping over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this limited extent, the proposed activity affects its substantial interests. Finally, the City of Freeport owns and operates its own public water supply utility. It has existing wells which are permitted by the District and which lie five miles directly south of WRP's proposed wellfield. Like the City of DeFuniak Springs, the City of Freeport will also experience drawdown impacts, although not considered significant, over the lifetime of the proposed permit. To this extent, the permit will impact the City of Freeport. This is true in spite of the City's admission that its principal concern in this case is WRP's intention to sell water to customers outside Walton County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting Consumptive Water Use Permit No. I05349 to WRP, Inc., as proposed in its Notice of Proposed Agency Action issued on June 5, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1999. Douglas E. Barr, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District Route 1, Box 3100 Havana, Florida 32333-9700 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Jack R. Pepper, Jr., Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0687 Clayton J. M. Adkinson, Esquire Post Office Box 1207 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435-1207 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Stephen L. Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3059 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to irrigate 450 acres of pasture land. In preparing its application Petitioner consulted the soil conservation office to obtain the amount of water required under extreme drought conditions. Petitioner's maximum pumping capacity is 2,500 gallons per minute, 108 million gallons per month, or 5.56 gallons per acre per minute. The longest period in which applicant recalls running its pumps continuously was 3 weeks. This occurred during a drought period and after the pumps had been out of operation for an extended period. During normal drought conditions Petitioner would expect to run its pumps 18 days per month. At the pumping capacity available to Petitioner this would amount to 64.8 million gallons of water per month. The maximum monthly allocation recommended by Respondent was 66 million gallons. The source of water from which an allocation is sought is the Florida aquifer and none of the water removed therefrom by this Petitioner will return. The Florida aquifer for which the water herein requested will be obtained is presently being mined, i.e. more water is being withdrawn therefrom than is going back into the aquifer. In evaluating the application the C&SFCD engineer took the 30 to 40 years annual rainfall, the consumptive water use for the crops to be grown and the difference between these figures as the annual supplemental irrigation required. Correcting these figures for evapotranspiration rates and allowing for drought conditions occurring 2 out of 10 years the figures of 66.5 million gallons, or 263 acre feet per month maximum usage was reached. Respondent proposed two special conditions upon the Petitioner. One, that Petitioner submit a water quality analysis from the pump discharge in May and October of each year. The second condition was that a measuring device be installed upon the pump to measure the amount of water pumped. The water quality analysis will cost Petitioner approximately $70 per year for the test alone. An hours of operation clock on the pump will suffice for the water measuring device.
