The Issue Whether Bay County has demonstrated its entitlement to the Permit?
Findings Of Fact The Ecologically Diverse Florida Panhandle With its high diversity of species and richness in endemic plants, the Florida Panhandle has been identified as one of six continental "biodiversity hot spots" north of Mexico. It has more species of frogs and snakes, for example, than any other equivalently-sized area in the United States and Canada and has botanical species that do not exist anywhere else in the Coastal Plain, one of the three floristic provinces of the North Atlantic American Region. The biodiversity stems from a number of factors. The Panhandle was not glaciated during the Pleistocene Period. Several major river systems that originate in the southern Appalachian Mountains terminate on the Panhandle's Gulf Coast. Its temperate climate includes relatively high rainfall. These factors promote or produce plentiful sources of surface and groundwater that encourage botanical and zoological life and, in turn, a diverse ecology. When compared to the rest of Florida, the Panhandle is relatively free from man-made impacts to its water resources. Until recently, the population growth rate lagged behind much of the state. Despite a rapid increase in the population in the late 1990s into the early part of the twenty-first century, it remains much less densely populated than areas in the I-4 Corridor and coastal peninsular Florida to the south. The Panhandle can be divided into physiographic areas of geological variation that are highly endemic; a substantial number of plant and animal species found in these areas are found nowhere else in the world. One of these areas is of central concern to this case. Located in southern Washington County and northern Bay County, it is known as the Sand Hill Lakes Area. The Sand Hill Lakes Area The Sand Hill Lakes Area (the "Area") is characterized by unusual geology that produces extraordinary ecological value. With few exceptions (see findings related to Dr. Keppner's flora and fauna inventories on the NTC/Knight Property below), the Area has not been extensively studied. The data on biological communities and water levels that exist, sparse as it is, has been obtained from historic aerials dating to 1941. The aerials are of some use in analyzing lakes and surface waters whose source is the Surficial Aquifer, but they are of limited value otherwise. They are not of use in determining the level in the Surficial Aquifer. Nor are they of assistance in determining river height when the banks of the river are covered by hardwood forest canopy. The resolution of the aerials is insufficient to show details of the various ecosystems. They do not show pitcher plants, for example, that exist at the site of hillside seepage bogs common in the Area. An aspect of the Area that the aerials do reveal is its many karst features on the surface of the land. Karst lakes and sinkholes dominate the Area and are a component of its highly unusual geology which is part of a larger system: the Dougherty Karst Plain. The Dougherty Karst Plain is characterized by numerous karst features: springs, caverns, sinkhole lakes, and sinkholes. Sinkholes In Florida, there are three types of sinkholes: cover subsidence, cover collapse, and "rock" or "cavern" collapse. Of the three, cover subsidence sinkholes are the most common in the state. Cover subsidence sinkholes form as the result of processes that occur on the surface. A cover subsidence sinkhole is usually a shallow pan typically not more than a few feet deep. Found throughout Central and South Florida, they are the most common type of sinkholes in most of peninsular Florida. In contrast, the other two major types of sinkholes (cover collapse and cavern collapse) occur as the result of processes below the surface that cause collapse of surface materials into the substrata. Both types of "collapse" sinkholes are found in the Area, but cover collapse is the more common. Cavern collapse sinkholes are relatively rare. Typical of the Area, cover subsidence sinkholes are not found on the NTC/Knight Property. The NTC/Knight Property The majority of the NTC/Knight Property is in Washington County, but the property straddles the county line so that a smaller part of it is in northern Bay County. All of the NTC/Knight Property is within the Area. The District recognizes that the NTC/Knight Property contains natural resources of extraordinary quality as does the Area generally. Over the three years that preceded the hearing, Dr. Keppner, an NTC/Knight expert, conducted extensive inventories of the flora and fauna on NTC/Knight Property. Dr. Keppner's inventory showed the NTC/Knight Property supports more than 500 species of vascular plants (flora with a system of tubes within the stem, phloem, and the xylem that exchange materials between the roots and leaves) and 300 species of animals. Among them are at least 28 vascular plants and six animals listed as imperiled (threatened or endangered) by state or federal agencies. At least 22 of the imperiled species of vascular plants and eight of the imperiled species of animals are located within an area expected to be affected by the Wellfield for which Bay County seeks the permit modification. For example, at Big Blue Lake alone where impacts were predicted by NTC/Knight experts to take place, the following imperiled plant species are found: Smoothbark, St. John's Wort, Kral's Yelloweyed Grass, Quilwort Yelloweyed Grass, Threadleaf Sundew, Panhandle Meadowbeauty, and Crystal Lake Nailwort. In addition to the Keppner inventory, NTC/Knight commissioned other studies to determine the nature of the sinkholes and whether they are connected to the Floridan Aquifer. NTC/Knight's experts determined that the property contains cover collapse and a few cavern collapse sinkholes that connect to the Floridan Aquifer. Despite evidence to the contrary submitted by the District and Bay County, the NTC/Knight determinations are accepted as facts for a number of reasons, including the lineup of the sinkholes and sinkhole lakes along identified photo-lineaments and the distribution of them in patterns that are not random. A District study using a dye test, moreover, confirmed conduit flow exists in the Area just east of the NTC/Knight Property. With regard to the distribution of the sinkholes and sinkhole lakes on the NTC/Knight Property, Dr. Sam Upchurch used the term "String of Pearls" to describe multiple sinkholes that exist along the edges of several lakes on the property. When sinkholes closer to the center of a lake are clogged or plugged with sediment and debris, the lakes continue to leak around the plugs which causes new sinkholes to form along the edge of the plugs. Examples of the "String of Pearls" formation on the edges of existing lakes are found at White Western and Big Blue Lakes on the NTC/Knight Property and at Crystal Lake nearby in Washington County. The multiple sinkholes bordering the edge of Big Blue Lake are examples of cover collapse sinkholes that, in geological terms, are relatively young as evidenced by their steep sides. In a karst area such as the Area, there is preferential flow in the conduits because of the difference of efficiency of transmission of water flowing through a porous medium of rock compared to that flowing though a conduit. Absent pumping in the Wellfield, the underlying aquifers are relatively stable. If the requested pumping does not take place, it is likely the stability will remain for a substantial period of time. It is not known with precision what will happen in the long term to the karst environment should pumping occur at the Wellfield at the rate the District proposes. When pumping occurs, however, water in the Area affected by the Wellfield will move toward the Wellfield. "[A]s it does[,] you may get some turbulent flow or vorticity in the water." Tr. 1391, (emphasis supplied). At some point, a change in the potentiometric surface and loss of buoyancy will most likely occur. This leads to concerns for Dr. Upchurch from two perspectives: One . . . is that if there is a[n affected] sinkhole lake [on the surface,] it may induce downward flow . . . the other . . . is that if it breaks the plug it may either create a new sinkhole or create a substantial drop in the level of water in the lake . . . which drains periodically, not necessarily because of a wellfield, but because that plug breaks. Id. In the first instance, lake levels could be reduced significantly. In the second, a new sinkhole could be created or the water level could drop dramatically as occurred at Lake Jackson in Tallahassee. Sand Hill Lakes Wetlands The Area contains a number of wetland communities. These include hillside seepage bogs, steepheads, sphagnum bogs, littoral seepage slopes around certain Sand Hill Lakes, temporary ponds, and creeks and streams in forested wetlands. A number of these wetlands occur on the NTC/Knight Property within the zone of influence in the Surficial Aquifer predicted by NTC/Knight's experts employing a model known as the "HGL Model." The wetland systems on the NTC/Knight Property are diverse, by type, plant species composition, and richness. This remarkable diversity led the District to recognize that the NTC/Knight Property contains lakes of nearly pristine quality, interconnected karst features, and endemic steephead ravines, all of which are regionally significant resources of extraordinary quality. The Area's wetlands also include many streams, among them Pine Log Creek, the majority of which is located on the NTC/Knight Property. Significant recharge to the Floridan Aquifer occurs on NTC/Knight Property. To the west, north, and east of the NTC/Knight Property are major concentrations of Floridan Aquifer springs that are crucial to the quality and character of regional surface water systems, including the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes Creek, and Econfina Creek systems. All of these surficial systems are dependent on the groundwater resources of the Area. The Area's Hillside Seepage Bogs Hillside seepage bogs are marsh-like wetland usually located on gentle slopes of the sides of valleys. They form when the Surficial Aquifer intercepts the sloping landscape allowing water to seep onto the sloped surface. The plant communities in the bogs are dominated by a great number and variety of herbaceous plants that prefer full sun. Among them are carnivorous plants. These unusual plants include the Trumpet and White-Topped pitcher plants as well as other varieties of pitcher plants. Inundation or saturation for extended periods of time is necessary for pitcher plants and most of the rest of the plant communities found in the bogs to thrive and to fend off invasion by undesirable species. Hillside seepage bogs are valued because they are among the most species-rich communities in the world. A reduction in water levels in the bogs below the root zone of associated plants will kill the plant communities that live in them and pose a threat to the continued existence of the bogs. Hillside seepage bogs were once abundant in pre- settlement Florida, but their expanse has been greatly reduced. They are now estimated to only occupy between one and five percent of their original range. On NTC/Knight Property, they have been spared to a significant degree. Numerous hillside seepage bogs continue to exist on the NTC/Knight Property primarily along the margin of Botheration Creek and its tributaries. The Area's Steepheads Steepheads are unique wetland systems. Found around the globe, they are usually regarded as a rarity. More than 50 percent of the steepheads that exist in the world are in a narrow latitudinal band that extends from Santa Rosa County in the west to Leon County in the east, a major section of the Florida Panhandle. Steepheads occur in deep sandy soils where water originating in the Surficial Aquifer carries away sand and cuts into sandy soils. The seepage emerges as a "headwater" to create a stream that conveys the water from the steephead into a river, or in some rare circumstances, into a karst lake. Over time, flow of the seepage waters results in deep, amphitheater- shaped ravines with steep valley side walls. Steepheads are important to the ecologies of the areas in which they occur. They provide habitat for a number of Florida endemic animals and plants believed to be relics of once-abundant species. Water that emerges from a steephead is perennial. Because the steep slopes of the steephead have not been disturbed over a long period of time, the water remains at a relatively constant temperature, no matter the season. Sampling of aquatic invertebrates at the Russ Pond and Tiller Mill Steepheads on the NTC/Knight Property found 41 and 33 distinct taxa, respectively, to inhabit the steepheads. Among them were a number of long-lived taxa. Their presence is consistent with the hallmark of a steephead: perennial flow of water at a relatively constant temperature. Most of the known steepheads flow into streams or rivers. Between six and ten within the Area, however, flow into Sand Hill Lakes. They have no direct connection to any surface drainage basin, thereby adding to their uniqueness. The level in the Surficial Aquifer has a direct impact on where and to what extent seepage flows from the sidewalls of a steephead. The Area's Sphagnum Bogs Sphagnum moss grows in many locations within the landscape and requires moisture. Where there is a large amount of sphagnum moss, it can form a unique community known as a sphagnum bog that is capable of supporting unique plant and animal populations. In the Area, these sphagnum bogs form along the valley sidewalls of steephead ravines and are fed by Surficial Aquifer seepage from the sidewall of the ravine. These sphagnum bogs support unique plant and animal communities, including a salamander discovered by Dr. Means that is new to science and so far only known to exist in sphagnum bogs in the Florida Panhandle. The Area's Sinkhole Lakes and their Littoral Seepage Slopes Sand Hill Lakes are nutrient poor, or "oligotrophic," receiving most of their nutrient inputs through exchange with the plant and animal communities on the adjacent littoral shelves during periods of high water levels. Fluctuating water levels in the Sand Hill Lakes allow a littoral zone with many different micro-habitats. Areas closest to the lakes are inundated regularly, but higher areas of the littoral zone are generally dry and inundated only every ten or 20 years -- just often enough to prevent encroachment of trees. In a few instances, portions of the littoral zones are inundated by seepage from the Surficial Aquifer. Above the normal low water of the Sand Hill Lakes, the littoral shelf occurs along a low gradient. As the littoral shelf transitions into the lake bottom and toward the deeper parts of the lake, there is an inflection point, where the gradient of the lake bottom becomes much steeper than the littoral shelf. If lake water levels fall below that natural inflection point, gully erosion will occur. The flow of water will be changed along the littoral shelf from seepage sheet flow over a wide expanse to water flowing down gullies in a concentrated stream. This change in flow will result in a loss of area needed by certain seepage dependent plants and animals as well as increased sedimentation from erosion. Big Blue Lake is unique because it boasts the largest known littoral zone seepage area of any Sand Hill Lake. The seepage zone along Big Blue Lake supports a number of rare plant species, including the Thread-Leaf Sundew, Smoothed Barked St. Johns Wort, and Crystal Lake Nailwort. The Area's Temporary Ponds Temporary ponds are small isolated water bodies that generally have no surface water inlet or outlet. Typically very shallow, they are sometimes wet and sometimes dry. Temporary ponds can range from basins that have continuous water for three to five years, to basins that have standing water for a month or two, every two to four years. These conditions limit their occupation by fish and, therefore, provide ideal conditions for amphibian reproduction which only occurs when water levels are maintained long enough to complete a reproductive cycle. In the Area, temporary ponds are a direct expression of the Surficial Aquifer and contain no known restrictive layer that might cause water to be "perched" above the Surficial Aquifer. Temporary ponds are critical to the viability of amphibian populations and support high amphibian biodiversity. A given pond can contain between five and eight species of salamander, and between 12 and 15 species of frogs. There has been a decline recently in the population of frogs and other amphibians that depend upon temporary ponds. The decline is due in part to ditching and other anthropogenic activities that have altered the hydrology of temporary ponds. Temporary ponds have a higher likelihood of being harmed by a drawdown than larger, connected wetlands systems. Lowered Surficial Aquifer water levels would lower water levels in temporary ponds and, thereby, threaten amphibian reproduction. Creeks/Streams in Forested Wetlands Streams are classified on the basis of the consistency of flowing water, including perennial (always flowing), intermittent (flowing part of the year), and ephemeral (flowing only occasionally during rain events). The type of stream flow is important because movement of water is essential to support aquatic systems in stream habitats. The NTC/Knight Property includes a number of stream systems, including Botheration Creek and Pine Log Creek. Botheration Creek is fed by groundwater discharge and originates, in large part, on the NTC/Knight Property. Botheration Creek flows from east to west until it intersects Pine Log Creek on the southwest part of the NTC/Knight Property. Botheration Creek provides Pine Log Creek with approximately 89 percent of Pine Log Creek's flow. From the confluence, Pine Log Creek flows south and west into the Pine Log State Forest and eventually joins the Choctawhatchee River. Botheration Creek contains high quality water and a diverse mix of aquatic invertebrates and fish. Sampling at a stage recorder located approximately two miles west of the eastern boundary of the NTC/Knight Property ("BCS-01") identified 46 taxa of macroinvertebrates, including six long- lived taxa, and mussels. The water level in Botheration Creek at BCS-01 was measured to be between 0.1 and 0.32 feet by four measurements taken from October 2010 to July 2011. Nonetheless, the presence of long-lived taxa and mussels indicates that, at BCS-01, Botheration Creek is a perennial stream. Carbon export from streams provides nutrients that feed the stream system. Headwater streams like Botheration Creek and its tributaries are essential to carbon export. For carbon export to occur, a stream must have out-of-bank flood events regularly to promote nutrient exchange with the flood plain. Bay County and its Water Supply Prior to 1961, the County obtained its public water supply from wellfields located near downtown Panama City. The wellfields drew from the Floridan Aquifer. An assessment of the pre-1961 groundwater pumping appears in a District Water Supply Assessment released in June 1998. In summary, it found that near Panama City, the potentiometric surface was substantially depressed by the pumping. Due to the threat of saltwater intrusion, the Deer Point Lake Reservoir (the "Reservoir") was constructed as an alternate water supply. A local paper mill, the city of Panama City, and Tyndall Air Force Base, all began to obtain public supply water from the Reservoir. Six years after the construction of the Reservoir, the Floridan Aquifer's water levels had rebounded to pre-pumping levels. See NTC/Knight Ex. 93 at 69. The authorization for the Reservoir began in the 1950's when the Florida Legislature passed a series of laws that granted Bay County authority to create a saltwater barrier dam in North Bay, an arm of the St. Andrews Bay saltwater estuary. The laws also allowed Panama City to develop and operate a surface freshwater reservoir to supply water for public use. The Deer Point Lake Dam (the "Dam") was built in 1961 from metal sheet piling installed across a portion of North Bay. The Dam created the Reservoir. The watershed of the Reservoir includes portions of Jackson, Calhoun, Washington, and Bay Counties and covers approximately 438 square miles. The Reservoir receives freshwater inflow from several tributaries, including Econfina Creek, Big Cedar Creek, Bear Creek/Little Bear Creek, and Bayou George Creek, totaling about 900 cubic feet per second ("cfs") or approximately 582 MGD. The volume of inflow would increase substantially, at least two-fold, during a 100-year storm event. The Dam is made of concrete and steel. Above it is a bridge and two-lane county road roughly 11.5 feet above sea level. The bridge is tied to the Dam by pylons. The top of the Dam is 4.5 feet above sea level, leaving a distance between the Dam and the bridge bottom of about seven feet. There is an additional structure above the Dam that contains gates, which swing open from the force of water on the Reservoir's side of the Dam. Capable of releasing approximately 550 MGD of freshwater into the saltwater bay, the gates keep the level of the Reservoir at about five feet above sea level. The height of the Dam and the gate structure leaves a gap between the bottom of the bridge deck and the top of the structure of "somewhere between 12 and 14 inches, a little better than a foot." Tr. 140. If storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico and St. Andrew's Bay were to top the Dam and the gate structure, the gap would allow saltwater to enter the Reservoir. The gates and the Dam structure are not designed to address storm surge. The Dam is approximately four feet thick and roughly 1,450 feet long. The 12-to-14 inch gap extends across the length of the Dam. With normal reservoir levels, the volume of water it contains is approximately 32,000-acre-feet or roughly 10.4 billion gallons. Bay County needs to drawdown the lake level for fish and wildlife purposes, the control of aquatic growth, and weed control. In winter, FWS prescribes a 45-day period of time to draw down the lake to expose the banks to kill vegetation. The last time the lake was drawn down by the County, the water level dropped approximately three feet, from five feet above sea level to two feet above sea level. This process took approximately six days and 16 hours, or approximately 53 hours/foot. Repair of the Dam and its Maintenance The Dam has been repaired three times. The last repair was following Hurricane Opal which hit the Florida Panhandle in the fall of 1995. During Hurricane Opal, "saltwater . . . entered . . . the [R]eservoir . . . [t]hat took 20-some days to flush out . . . ." Tr. 135. No evidence was presented regarding the Dam's vulnerability from the perspective of structural integrity during normal or emergency conditions. Other than the inference drawn from Mr. Lackemacher's testimony that Hurricane Opal damaged the Dam in 1995, no evidence was presented to suggest that the Dam's structure is vulnerable to damage caused by a storm surge, wave effect or other conditions caused by a storm of any magnitude. After the last of the three repairs, Bay County implemented a detailed maintenance program. Based upon the latest inspection reports, the Dam is in good condition and structurally sound. No work other than routine inspection and maintenance is currently planned. The 1991 Agreement and the WTP Bay County's current withdrawal of water from the Reservoir is based on a 1991 agreement between Bay County and the District (the "1991 Agreement"). See Joint Ex. Vol. II, Tab K. The 1991 Agreement allows Bay County after the year 2010 to withdraw 98 MGD (annual average) with a maximum daily withdrawal of 107 MGD. The 1991 Agreement, still in effect, authorizes Bay County to withdraw enough water from the Reservoir to meet its needs through 2040. Water for public supply is withdrawn from the Reservoir by a water utility pump station (the "Pump Station") located a short distance from the Dam in Williams Bayou. The water is piped to the water utility's treatment plant (the "Water Treatment Plant") five miles away. The Water Treatment Plant treats 60 MGD. Following treatment, the water is distributed to Bay County's wholesale and retail customers. The Reservoir water available to Bay County utilities is more than adequate to fulfill the water consumption demands of Bay County's system through a 20-year permit horizon. The transmission line between the Pump Station and the Water Treatment Plant has fittings that were designed to allow transmission of groundwater withdrawn from groundwater wells to be located along the transmission line to the Water Treatment Plant to provide a backup supply for the Reservoir. Bay County's Current Use of Potable Water The amount of water consumed by Bay County utility customers has declined over the last five years. Bay County's current use of water, based upon the average of the 13 months prior to the hearing, was 24.5 MGD, an amount that is only 25 percent of the water allocation authorized by the 1991 Agreement. There are approximately 560,000 linear feet of main transmission lines in Bay County with small service lines accounting for another several hundred thousand linear feet. Bay County furnishes water directly to approximately 6,000 retail customers in areas known as North Bay, Bay County, and the former Cedar Grove area, which is now part of Bay County. Wholesale customers include Panama City Beach, Panama City, Mexico Beach, Callaway, Parker, Springfield, and parts of Lynn Haven. The County also furnishes potable water to Tyndall Air Force Base. Lynn Haven does have some water supply wells; however, Bay County still supplements this water supply by approximately 30 percent. No other cities serviced by Bay County produce their own water. Bay County has a population of approximately 165,000- 170,000 permanent residents, which includes residents of the cities. The Bay County area experiences seasonal tourism. From spring break to July 4th, the population can grow to more than 300,000. The users of Bay County's drinking water supplies include hospitals, Tyndall Air Force Base, and the Naval Support Activity of Panama City ("NSA"). The County has 178 doctor's offices, 56 dental offices, 29 schools, 21 fire departments, 12 walk-in-clinics, six nursing and rehabilitation homes, six major employers, three colleges and universities, and two major hospitals, all which are provided drinking water by Bay County. Panama City Beach is the community which has the highest water use. Panama City Beach's average daily use is approximately 12 MGD. The peak day of usage for all of Bay County's customers over the 13 months prior to the hearing was 40 MGD. Bay County sells water to community water utility systems referred to as a "consecutive system." They include Panama City Beach, Panama City, and Mexico Beach. Bay County's request for 30 MGD contemplates provision of water for all essential and non-essential water uses occurring within the consecutive system. Bay County and the consecutive systems are subject to the District's regulations regarding emergency water use restrictions which typically restrict the non-essential use of water during water shortage emergencies. Hurricanes, Train Wrecks, and Post-9/11 America At the District's recommendation, Bay County has been considering a backup potable water source since the mid-1980's. Bay County's main concern is that it has inadequate alternatives to the Reservoir should it be contaminated. Contamination to date has been minimal. In the period of time after the 1961 creation of the Reservoir to the present, the Dam and the Reservoir have suffered no major damage or impacts from a tropical storm. No tropical storm since 1961 has disrupted Bay County's ability to provide potable water. Even Hurricane Opal in 1995 did not disrupt the water supply. Recent hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico, however, has aroused the County's fears. Should a storm of sufficient magnitude make landfall in proximity to the Dam, there is potential for saltwater contamination of the Reservoir from storm surge or loss of impounded freshwater due to damage to the Dam. Mr. Lackemacher, assistant director of the Bay County Utility Department and manager of the water and wastewater divisions of the department, has experience with other hurricanes in Palm Beach, Florida, and Hurricane Hugo in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, during which water utilities suffered disruption of their distribution systems. The experience bolsters his concern about the damage a storm could cause Bay County's source of public water supply. Bay County's intake structure at Williams Bayou is approximately one mile away from the Dam. The location of the Pump Station puts it at risk for damage from a strong storm or hurricane. There is a rail line near the Reservoir. It runs along Highway 231 and over creeks that flow into the Reservoir, including the Econfina Creek. The rail line is known as "Bayline." Bayline's most frequent customers are the paper mill and the Port of Panama City. Not a passenger line, Bayline is used for the transport of industrial and chemical supplies. In 1978, a train derailment occurred on tracks adjacent to creeks that feed the Reservoir. The derailment led to a chlorine gas leak into the atmosphere. There was no proof offered at hearing of contamination of the Reservoir. There has never been a spill that resulted in a hazardous chemical or pollutant being introduced into the Reservoir. Bay County has not imposed restrictions on the type of vehicles that are allowed to use, or the material that may pass over, the county road on the bridge above the Dam. Nonetheless, in addition to saltwater contamination, Bay County also bases the need for an alternative water source on the possibility of a discharge into the Reservoir of toxic substances from a future train derailment. Bay County is also concerned about contamination of the Reservoir from a terrorist attack. In short, Bay County is concerned about "anything that could affect the water quality and water in Deer Point Lake." Tr. 184. The concerns led Bay County to file its application for the Wellfield on lands currently owned by the St. Joe Company. Consisting of ten wells spaced over an area of approximately ten square miles, the Wellfield would have a capacity of 30 MGD. Bay County's application was preceded by the development of the District's Region III Regional Water Supply Plan and efforts to acquire funding. Funding for the Wellfield and the Region III Regional Water Supply Plan Shortly after the commencement of the planning for the Wellfield, the District, in May 2007, authorized the use of funds from the State's Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund ("WPSTF"). The WPSTF is intended for development of alternative water supplies. In cooperation with the District, Bay County began drilling a test well followed by analyses to evaluate the water for potable suitability. In October of the same year, the District passed a resolution to request the Department of Environmental Protection to release $500,000 from the WPSTF to the District for local utilities in Bay and Escambia Counties for "Water Resource Development." NTC/Knight Ex. 195, p. 2. The amount was to be used "to provide funding for implementation of alternative water supply development and water resource developments projects pursuant to sections 403.890 and 373.1961, F.S." Id., p. 1. In February 2008, the District began a process to develop a regional water supply plan for Bay County. If the Wellfield were designated in the applicable regional water supply plan as "nontraditional for a water supply planning region," then it would meet the definition of "alternative water supplies" found in section 373.019(1), Florida Statutes. "In evaluating an application for consumptive use of water which proposes the use of an alternative water supply project as described in the regional water supply plan," the District is mandated "to presume that the alternative water supply is consistent with the public interest " § 373.223(5). Whether the Wellfield is to be presumed to be in the public interest depends on whether the application proposes the use of an alternative water supply project as described in the District's Region III Water (Bay County) Water Supply Plan adopted in 2008. The 2008 RWSP Pursuant to the process commenced in February, the District in August 2008 produced the Region III (Bay County) Regional Water Supply Plan (the "2008 RWSP"). In a section entitled "Identification of Alternative Water Supply Development Projects," the 2008 RWSP provides the following: "All of the water supply development projects identified in Table 4 are interrelated and considered alternative, nontraditional water supply development projects." NTC/Knight Ex. 187 at 14. Table 4 of the 2008 RWSP does not specifically identify the Wellfield. It identifies three projects in general terms. The first of the three (the only one that arguably covers the Wellfield) shows "Bay County Utilities" as the sole entity under the heading "Responsible Entities." Id. at 13. The project is: "Inland Ground Water Source Development and Water Supply Source Protection." Id. Under the heading, "Purpose/Objective," the Table states for the first project, "Develop inland alternative water supply sources to meet future demands and abate risks of salt water intrusion and extreme drought." Id. The Table shows "Estimated Quantity (MGD)" to be "10.0." Id. (In July 2008, the District's executive director informed Bay County that the Wellfield could produce 10 MGD.) The "Time Frame" is listed as 2008-12, and the "Estimated Funding" is "$5,200,000 WPSPTF" and "$7,800,000 Local, NWFWMD." Id. While not specifically identified in the 2008 RWSP, Table 4's project description supports a finding that the Wellfield is, in fact, one of the inland alternative water supply sources. The 2008 RWSP, therefore, designates the Wellfield as a "nontraditional" water supply source for Region III.4/ (The Wellfield also, therefore, meets the definition of "[a]lternative water supplies" in section 373.019(1). The demonstration of a prima facie case by Bay County and the District, however, make the applicability of the presumption a moot point. See Conclusions of Law, below.) Water Supply Assessments and Re-evaluations Development of a regional water supply plan by the governing board of each water management district is mandated "where [the governing board] determines that existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future reasonable-beneficial uses and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems for the planning period." § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. (the "Regional Water Supply Planning Statute"). The District determined in its 1998 District Water Supply Assessment ("WSA") for Region III (Bay County) that the existing and reasonably anticipated water sources are adequate to meet the requirements of existing legal users and reasonably anticipated future water supply needs of the region through the year 2020, while sustaining the water resource and related natural systems. See NTC/Knight 93 at 79. In 2003, Ron Bartel, the director of the District's Resource Management Division, issued a memorandum to the Governing Board (the "2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum"), the subject of which is "Regional Water Supply Planning Re- evaluation." NTC/Knight 95 (page stamped 42). The 2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum sets out the following with regard to when a "water supply plan" is needed: The primary test we have used for making a determination that a water supply plan was "not needed" for each region is that projected consumptive use demands for water from major water users do not exceed water available from traditional sources without having adverse impacts on water resources and related natural systems. Similarly, regional water supply planning is initiated "where it is determined that sources of water are not adequate for the planning period (20) years to supply water for all existing and reasonable-beneficial uses and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems." Id. With regard to the need for a Water Supply Plan for Bay County the 2003 Re-evaluation Memorandum states: [I]n Bay County (Region III), sufficient quantities have been allocated for surface water withdrawal from Deer Point Lake Reservoir through the District's consumptive use permitting program extending through the year 2040. In this area, the District is also scheduled to complete a minimum flow and level determination for the lake by the year 2006. This determination will be useful for deciding if additional water supply planning is needed before the permit expires in 2040. Id. (page stamped 43). The 2008 RWSP's designation of the Wellfield is justified in the minutes of the Governing Board meeting at which the 2008 RWSP's approval took place: While the reservoir has largely replaced the use of coastal public supply wells historically impacted by saltwater intrusion, there remain challenges within the region that make development and implementation of a Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) appropriate. Development of alternative water supplies would diversify public supply sources and help drought-proof the region through establishment of facility interconnections. Development of alternative supplies would also minimize vulnerability associated with salt water potentially flowing into the reservoir during major hurricane events. Id., p. 3 of 4. The adoption of the 2008 RWSP was followed in December 2008 by the District's 2008 Water Supply Assessment Update. The update is consistent with the earlier determinations of the adequacy of the Reservoir as a water supply source for the foreseeable future (in the case of the update, through 2030). The update also voices the concern about water quality impacts from storm surge. The update concludes with the following: In Region III, the existing and reasonably anticipated surface water resources are adequate to meet the requirements of existing and reasonably anticipated future average demands and demands for a 1-in-10 year drought through 2030, while sustaining water resources and related natural systems. However, the major concern for potential water quality impacts is that resulting from hurricane storm surge. A Regional Water Supply Plan (NWFWMD 2008) has recently been prepared for Region III to address concerns associated with existing surface water systems. NTC/Knight Ex. 101, p. 3-41. The Parties Washington County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Washington County is located directly north of Bay County and the Wellfield and within one mile of some of the proposed wells. Washington County includes thousands of wetlands and open water systems. Because of the hydro-geologic system in the area of the Wellfield, if there are wetland, Surficial Aquifer, and surface water impacts from the withdrawal under the Permit, it is likely that impacts will occur in Washington County. Washington County has a substantial interest in protection, preservation, and conservation of its natural resources, including lakes, springs, and wetlands, and the flora and fauna that depend on these water resources, especially endangered flora and fauna. Washington County has a substantial interest in the protection of all water resources in Washington County because of the close relationship between surface waters, groundwater, and the potable water supply used by Washington County residents. NTC/Knight is the owner of approximately 55,000 acres of land located in northern Bay County and southern Washington County. The NTC/Knight Property includes thousands of acres of wetlands and open waters, including Sand Hill Lakes, steepheads, hillside seepage bogs, sphagnum bogs, littoral seepage slopes around certain Sand Hill Lakes, temporary ponds, and forested wetlands. A large portion of the NTC/Knight Property is directly adjacent to the Wellfield and within the HGL Model projected drawdown contour. Based on the projected amount of drawdown from pumping at the proposed average rate of 5 MGD, the 0.5 projected drawdown contour predicted by the HGL Modeling Report (see Finding of Fact 121, below) extends over thousands of acres of the property. NTC/Knight has a substantial interest in the protection of the surface and groundwater directly on, under, and adjacent to its property. The water supports the numerous ecosystems of extraordinary value located on the property. James Murfee and Lee Lapensohn are individuals, who reside in Bay County on property fronting on and beneath Tank Pond approximately five miles from the Wellfield. Petitioners Murfee and Lapensohn have a well which extends into the Intermediate Aquifer. The Murfee and Lapensohn properties are within the HGL Model projected drawdown contour. Petitioners Murfee and Lapensohn have a substantial interest in the protection of their drinking water supply well and the surface waters directly on and adjacent to their properties. Bay County, the applicant, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069(1). It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.069(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes Section 120.569(2)(p), in pertinent part, provides: For any proceeding arising under chapter 373, chapter 378, or chapter 403, if a nonapplicant petitions as a third party to challenge an agency’s issuance of a license, permit, or conceptual approval, the order of presentation in the proceeding is for the permit applicant to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the license, permit, or conceptual approval, followed by the agency. This demonstration may be made by entering into evidence the application and relevant material submitted to the agency in support of the application, and the agency’s staff report or notice of intent to approve the permit, license, or conceptual approval. Subsequent to the presentation of the applicant’s prima facie case and any direct evidence submitted by the agency, the petitioner initiating the action challenging the issuance of the license, permit, or conceptual approval has the burden of ultimate persuasion and has the burden of going forward to prove the case in opposition to the license, permit, or conceptual approval through the presentation of competent and substantial evidence. The permit applicant and agency may on rebuttal present any evidence relevant to demonstrating that the application meets the conditions for issuance. Paragraph (p) was added to section 120.569(2) in the 2011 Session of the Florida Legislature. Accordingly, the final hearing commenced with the Bay County and the District's presentation of its prima facie case by submitting the application, supporting documentation, and the District's approval of the application. Respondents also presented the testimony of four witnesses in the hearing's first phase. Phase I of the Final Hearing: Bay County's Application, Supporting Documents, the District's Approval and Supporting Testimony The Application File At the final hearing, Bay County and the District offered the "application file," marked as Joint Exhibit Binder Volumes I-IV (the "Application File") in the hearing's first phase. It was admitted into evidence. A document entitled "Alternate Water Supply Report - Bay County Water Division" dated May 20, 2008 (the "Hatch Mott MacDonald Report") is contained in the Application File. See Joint Ex. Vol. I, Tab B. The Hatch Mott MacDonald Report is a preliminary evaluation of a wellfield with 22 wells, an "initial phase . . . [of] five (5) wells producing 5 MGD and the final phase . . . [of] 17 wells, producing 25 MGD." Id. at 1. The evaluation includes the gathering of information, a recommendation for the best method of treatment, an analysis of whether individual well sites or a centralized site would be superior, a hydraulic model and analysis, and the potential construction and operation costs. The report concludes in its Executive Summary: HMM's preliminary results, based upon water analysis of Well No. 1, indicate that only disinfection will be required for potable water treatment. Additionally, the hydraulic analysis indicated that the wells are capable of providing the initial 5 MGD and future 25 MGD to the proposed connection point along Highway 388 without re-pumping. Adequate storage for fire protection should be considered at current and future service areas. The use of chlorine gas at each well site during the initial phase had the lowest present worth of $16,770,270; that is, the smallest amount of funds needed today to build, operate, and maintain the system. The use of chlorine gas at each well in the final phase had a present worth of $41,245,118, only slightly more than the present worth of $40,834,245 for on-site Id. generation of disinfectant at three (3) central facilities. The Application File contains a response to a District request for additional information (the "2009 RAI Response") submitted by the Bay County Services Utility Director and received by the District in September 2009. See Joint Ex. Vol. II, Tab K. The 2009 RAI Response contains the 1991 Agreement and numerous other documents. Among them is a report prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc. ("HGL") entitled "Groundwater Model Development for the Assessment of a New Wellfield in Bay County, Florida" dated September 2009 (the "2009 HGL Modeling Report"). The report predicts impacts that would be created to the surrounding aquifers as a result of the Wellfield pumping, but recommends that additional data be obtained. The Application File contains the District's Notice dated March 25, 2010. See Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab B. Attached to the Notice is a draft of the Permit and a staff report from the District recommending approval with conditions. Condition 11 of the Permit's standard conditions obligates Bay County to mitigate any significant adverse impacts caused by withdrawals and reserves the right to the District to curtail permitted withdrawal rates "if the withdrawal causes significant adverse impact on the resource and legal uses of water, or adjacent land use, which existed at the time of the permit application." Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab B, p. 3 of 17. Attachment A to the Permit requires conditions in addition to the standard conditions contained in the body of the Permit. Paragraph 12 of Attachment A, for example, requires that Bay County implement and maintain a water and conservation efficiency program with a number of goals. Attachment B to the Permit requires a monitoring and evaluation program and wetland monitoring of adjacent properties to determine if the pumping causes adverse impacts to wetland areas, including habitat and species utilization. The Application File contains a revised modeling report also entitled "Groundwater Model Development for the Assessment of a New Wellfield in Bay County, Florida" (the "2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report" or the "HGL Model Report"). See Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab P. The 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report predicts impacts of the pumping of the Wellfield on the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the Surficial Aquifer. The HGL Model is based on an adaptation of an original model first developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and then further adapted by HGL. The adapted model is known as MODFLOW-SURFACT. The MODFLOW-SURFACT Model has been used in excess of 600 applications and is used worldwide. The HGL Model predicted impact from pumping when wellfield pumping achieves a "steady state." Steady state impact is achieved after 10-12 years of constant pumping. The impact and the area of impact is depicted on Figure 5.1b(1) of the 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report. The predicted drawdown of the Surficial Aquifer is predicted to be six inches (0.5 ft) within the areas indicated. The Application File shows that the permit was revised twice. Ultimately, a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated July 22, 2011, was issued by the District. Attached to the Second Revised NOPAA is the District's Permit. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U. A revised Staff Report from the District dated July 18, 2011, is also included in Volume IV of the joint exhibits. See id., Tab Q. The Permit as supported by the staff report allows an average daily withdrawal of 5 MGD, a maximum daily withdrawal of 30 MGD for no more than 60 days per year (with a maximum of 52 consecutive days), and a maximum monthly amount of 775 million gallons. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U. The Permit also includes the LTEMP jointly prepared by the Applicant and the District. See id., Attachment B. The Permit requires Bay County to "mitigate any significant adverse impact caused by withdrawals . . . on the resource and legal water withdrawals and uses, and on adjacent land use, which existed at the time of the permit application." Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab R, p. 3 of 11. If the District receives notice of an impact from the existing legal user, it contacts the utility. "Within 72 hours [the utility has] a well contractor out there and they have determined what the problem is." Tr. 615. There are no time requirements for the resolution of the impact or any other resolution procedures in the Permit. Definitions of Emergency and Maintenance Amounts The Permit does not include a definition of when the Reservoir may be considered to be unavailable as a public water supply. That determination is left to Bay County. The Permit does not set a withdrawal limit lower than the limits detailed above for maintenance of the Wellfield. There is one set of withdrawal limits. They apply irrespective of the purpose of the withdrawals, that is, whether for backup in an emergency, maintenance, or some other purpose that falls under Public Supply or Industrial Use. Conditions and Monitoring Requirements Bay County is required to mitigate any significant adverse impacts on resources and legal water withdrawals and uses caused by the County's withdrawal from the Wellfield. In addition, the District reserves the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates if Bay County's withdrawal causes adverse impacts on local resources and legal uses of water in existence at the time of the permit application. In the event of a declared water shortage, the Permit requires Bay County to make water withdrawal reductions ordered by the District. In addition, the District may alter, modify, or deactivate all or parts of the Permit. Attachment A to the Permit, states: The Permittee shall not exceed total, combined groundwater and surface water (authorized in Individual Water Use Permit No. 19910142) withdrawals of an average daily withdrawal of 98,000,000 gallons, a maximum daily withdrawal of 107,000,000 gallons and a maximum monthly withdrawal of 2,487,750,000 gallons. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, p. 4 of 11. The inclusion of "surface water" in the condition covers withdrawals from the Reservoir. The combination of actual withdrawals from the Wellfield and actual withdrawals from the Reservoir, therefore, means that Bay County may not exceed the limitations of the withdrawals authorized by the 1991 Agreement. Attachment A to the Permit further explains how Bay County must mitigate harm caused by groundwater withdrawals. The Permittee, within seven days of determination or notification by the District that the authorized groundwater withdrawal is causing harm to the resources, shall cease or reduce, as directed by the District, its pumping activity. The Permittee shall retain the services of a qualified, licensed professional to investigate allegations of interference with an existing, legal groundwater use. The Permittee shall ensure their chosen contractor investigates the alleged interference within 72 hours of the allegation being made. If it is determined that the use of a well has been impaired as a result of the Permittee's operation, the Permittee shall undertake the required mitigation or some other arrangement mutually agreeable to the Permittee and the affected party. The Permittee shall be responsible for the payment of services rendered by the licensed water well contractor and/or professional geologist. The Permittee, within 30 days of any allegation of interference, shall submit a report to the District including the date of the allegation, the name and contact information of the party making the allegation, the result of the investigation made and any mitigation action undertaken. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment A, p. 4 of 11. Bay County is also required, within two years from the Permit's issuance, to submit to the District for review and approval a contingency plan to mitigate potential impacts. The County must wait one full year prior to commencing withdrawal of groundwater for production purposes. During the one-year period, the County must complete groundwater, surface water, and wetland monitoring. The requirements of the mandatory monitoring are found in Attachment B of the Permit, LTEMP. See Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment B. The LTEMP "is designed to track trends in ecological and hydrological conditions caused by naturally occurring fluctuations in rainfall, which may affect ground and surface water hydrologic conditions; and to identify potential effects caused by wellfield pumping." Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab U, Attachment B at 1. If a substantive deviation occurs from predictions made by the HGL Modeling, or if any other hydrologic or ecologic changes due to the withdrawals are observed at monitoring sites, the District is required to review and, in consultation with Bay County, appropriately revise the LTEMP as necessary with the aim that the monitoring will assure that the conditions for issuance of the Permit are being met. Testimony in Support of the Application In addition to the documentary evidence offered in the first phase of the proceeding, Bay County and the District presented the testimony of several witnesses. These witnesses testified as to background and the 2008 RWSP, the vulnerability of the Reservoir to saltwater contamination from storm surge, and the basis for the District's decision. Vulnerability to Storm Surge There is a one percent chance every year of a 100- year storm event. Flood Insurance Rates Maps ("FIRMS") show that the 100-year water level (the level of storm surge in a 100-year storm event) at the Dam will reach 11 feet NAVD, two feet above the top of the gate structure above the Dam. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") and the National Weather Service ("NWS") have developed the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes ("SLOSH") model, which estimates storm surge depths resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes. A Florida Department of Emergency Management's SLOSH model of the Panama City area shows maximum surge levels for Storm Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, in NAVD feet as 3.3, 5.8, 10.8, 14.1, and 18.1, respectively. The SLOSH model, in all likelihood, is a low estimation. It is reasonable to expect surge levels in a Category 3 hurricane that passes directly over the Dam, for example, to be higher than 10.8 feet NAVD predicted by the SLOSH model at the Dam. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ("NOAA") database, 43 tropical storms and hurricanes have passed within 200 miles of the Reservoir between 1970 and 2010 and 20 have come within 100 miles. None have made landfall closer than 40 miles away from the Dam. Of the 20 storms passing within 100 miles of the Reservoir, four have reached Category 3 strength or higher: Eloise, Elena, Opal, and Dennis. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan made landfall over 100 miles to the west of the Dam and raised water levels near the Dam to nearly five feet NAVD. The following year, Hurricane Dennis made landfall 76 miles to the west of the Dam. Dennis produced a surge level of nearly four feet NAVD near the Dam. "Hurricane Eloise (1975) made landfall 40 miles west of Panama City and produced water levels 15 ft above normal at Panama City ([citation omitted]). However, the storm passed through the area quickly and does not appear to have significantly affected the dam." Bay County Ex. 1, p. 3 of 9. Hurricane Opal made landfall 86 miles west of Panama City Beach and produced water levels of about 8.3 feet NAVD near the Dam. The storm surge did not overtop the gate structure above the Dam, but the gates were jammed by debris. "[C]hloride levels rose above 50 ppm at the intake pumps and two to three times above normal background levels of 8 to 10 ppm 'almost one mile up-reservoir.'" Id. The levels of chloride were "still well within drinking water limits," tr. 434, of 250 parts-per- million (ppm). Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005 more than 200 miles west of the Reservoir with storm surges higher than 20 feet. Katrina produced surge levels of five feet above normal tide levels in Bay County. The rate and amount of saltwater that would enter the Reservoir depends on the height of the storm surge above the Dam. The 100-year surge levels could remain above the top of the Dam for three or more hours. Such an event would introduce approximately 56,200,000 cubic feet or 1,290 acre-feet of saltwater into the Reservoir, even if the Dam were to remain intact (undamaged) and the tide gates remain closed. The salinity levels bay-side of the dam are generally 23,000 to 33,000 ppm. It is reasonable to expect that in the event of a 100-year storm event, much of the storm surge would come directly from the Gulf of Mexico, which has higher salinity levels. With the Dam intact, the introduction of 1,290 acre- feet of saltwater at 33,000 ppm would raise the average chloride concentration in the Reservoir to at least 800 ppm, more than three times the maximum drinking water chloride level of 250 ppm. Assuming the Dam remained intact during a 100-year storm event, freshwater added over time to the lake from the streams and aquifer will dilute the elevated lake chloride level and restore the lake water to a level fit for human consumption. The USGS has measured stream flow at Deer Point Lake and estimated the lake receives an average of 600 million gallons of freshwater per day or 900 cfs. Post-Opal rates were estimated at 1,500 cfs by the District. Given the estimated volume of saltwater introduced to the lake, at an inflow rate equal to the estimated post- hurricane freshwater inflow rate, Bay County's expert, Dr. Miller, estimated it would take at least two weeks to reduce salinity in the lake to drinkable levels. The inflow rate, however, is not certain. Dr. Miller estimated it is reasonable to expect that it could take anywhere from two weeks to two months for the lake to recover from the saltwater intrusion depending on the variation in the inflow rate. Nonetheless, Dr. Miller assumed that the saltwater from storm surge entering the Reservoir would mix in a uniform matter. There would be "quite a bit of mixing in a storm," tr. 485, of saltwater topping the Dam and freshwater in the Dam. But there would also be stratification due to the sinking of denser saltwater and the rising in the water column of freshwater. The above estimations assume the bridge and Dam remain intact during a major storm. The Dam and tide gates act as a solid barrier, protecting the lake from saltwater in the bay. If rainfall rises in the lake prior to a surge, the tide gates would open to release water, becoming vulnerable to damage or jamming by debris as occurred during Hurricane Opal. In the event of storm surge bringing saltwater into the Reservoir, the opening of the tide gates will assist the Reservoir in reaching chloride levels below 250 ppm provided the tide gates operate properly. Dr. Janicki, an NTC/Knight expert, used the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code hydrodynamic model ("EFDC Model") to simulate the effects of control structures and water withdrawals on the Reservoir. Taking into consideration the factors Dr. Janicki considered relevant, he predicted that chloride levels, in the event of storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane overtopping the Dam, would only exceed 250 ppm, the drinking water standard, for approximately 3.4 days. Dr. Janicki's prediction, however, was flawed. He added too little saltwater to the lake in the event of contamination from storm surge. He assumed that saltwater would be flushed too soon from the Reservoir following contamination. He did not account for the effects of waves in his model. His model was not in accord with data for Hurricane Opal and the chloride levels near the Dam taken by Bay County after Opal. If the bridge and Dam were severely damaged, more saltwater could enter the lake. With severe damage to the Dam, the Reservoir would be exposed to normal tides. Restoration would not begin until the Dam and bridge had been fully repaired. If an event were catastrophic, the Reservoir could be offline for a lengthy period of time. The Basis for the District's Decision Bay County's reliance on the Reservoir for water for the majority of the population led the District in the mid-1980s to encourage the County to obtain a backup supply. After the District turned down several requests for withdrawals of up to 30 MGD for every day of the year, the District ultimately approved what is reflected in the Permit. The justification for the permitted withdrawal is as a backup supply in the event the Reservoir becomes unavailable and for maintenance of the system and recoupment of its cost. With regard to maintenance, the District attempted to obtain information from Bay County as to appropriate withdrawal limitations. The attempts were abandoned. Despite repeated requests by the District, Bay County did not provide the amount of water needed to be withdrawn for maintenance since it did not have "infrastructure specifics," tr. 552, needed to provide the District with a numeric limit. In contrast to the amount needed for maintenance, the District found Bay County to have demonstrated that it needs 30 MGD when the Reservoir is offline and that it is reasonable for the County to need 30 MGD up to 60 days per year. The District determined that the Bay County's application met the requirements for the issuance of a consumptive use permit found in section 373.221(1)(a)-(c). In determining whether approval of the application is in the public interest, the District did not presume that it is in the public interest on the basis of the designation in the 2008 RWSP of an inland groundwater source as an alternative water supply. The District determined that it is in the public's interest for Bay County to have a reliable and safe water supply source as a backup to the Reservoir irrespective of the statutory presumption. Nonetheless, the District maintains in this proceeding that the presumption applies. The District also applied the 18 criteria test for finding a reasonable-beneficial use found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.410(a)-(r) and determined that the application should be approved. Petitioners' Case in Opposition Washington County (Petitioner in Case No. 10-2983), NTC/Knight (Petitioner in Case No. 10-2984), and Messrs. Murfee and Lapensohn (Petitioners in Case No. 10-10100) filed individual petitions for formal administrative hearing. Although not identical, the petitions share the similarity that, in essence, each alleges that Bay County failed to establish that the proposed use of water meets the statutory and rule criteria for obtaining a permit for the consumptive use of water. For example, among the many issues listed under the heading "Disputed Issues of Material Fact and Law" in Washington County's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing is "[w]hether Bay County has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed use of water is a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in section 373.019, Florida Statutes." See p. 5 of the Washington County petition. In like fashion, the Washington County petition and the other two petitions allege that the issues are whether Bay County provided reasonable assurance that it meets the other statutory criteria in section 373.223, and the applicable rule criteria that must be met by an applicant in order for the District to issue a permit for the consumptive use of water. The Petitioners' cases focused on five topics: 1) the limitations of the HGL Model; 2) the likelihood of impacts to wetlands and the failure of the monitoring plan to provide reasonable assurance that the District's monitoring under the plan will succeed in detecting harm to wetlands caused by the withdrawals; 3) the reasonable-beneficial nature of the proposed use of the permit, including the vulnerability of the Reservoir; 4) interference with presently existing legal users; and 5) the feasibility of alternative sources. Bay County and the District offered evidence on rebuttal to meet the Petitioners' cases. Surrebuttal was conducted by Petitioners. Modeling Groundwater models "represent what is happening in very complex physical systems." Tr. 1495. Typically, the data used by models is not sufficient to obtain a completely accurate representation. The models depend on specific data points such as information from boreholes or water level measurements that do not reveal everything that is occurring in the complex system and, therefore, are not enough to support completely accurate model predictions. As explained by Dr. Guvanasen, Bay County and the District's expert, in order to reach a representation of the entire system when the data available from boreholes and measurements is insufficient, which is typically the case, the modeler must "extrapolate a lot of information and use other knowledge of other events." Id. The "knowledge of other events" that the HGL Model used included Dr. Scott's knowledge of the karst environment in the Panhandle of Florida, the mapping of Bay and Washington County geology by the Florida Geological Society, and Dr. Upchurch's knowledge of karst topography. The HGL results of the available data and the extrapolations were placed into a mathematical model (the HGL Model) that considered the withdrawals at issue to determine the response of the system to the additional stress of the withdrawals. Mathematical models like the HGL Model lead to "non- unique solutions" in which "no model . . . is exactly 100 percent correct . . . ." Tr. 1635. Modeling results, therefore, are subject to changes as additional data is collected that demand a better representation than the model provided prior to the data's collection and analysis. HGL Modeling for this case provides examples of non- unique solutions. HGL "built a model twice . . . and got two different sets of answers." Tr. 1633. Besides the recommendation that more data be obtained after the first HGL Model results, the model was not satisfactorily calibrated and the model was recalibrated for the Revised HGL Modeling results. Mr. Davis, NTC/Knight's expert, conducted additional modeling work (the "Davis Modeling"). Using the HGL Model and additional data concerning the NTC/Knight Property, Mr. Davis found drawdowns would occur over a similar but greater area than shown in the 2011 Revised HGL Modeling Report. (Compare NTC/Knight Ex. 31 at 2 to Joint Ex. Vol. III, Tab P, Figure 51b(1).) The Davis Modeling drawdowns, moreover, ranged up to 0.8 feet, 60 percent more than the 0.5 feet determined by the second HGL Modeling results. In the area of Big Blue Lake, for example, the drawdown contours produced by the Davis Model were either 0.6 feet or 0.7 feet, 20 to 40 percent more than the 0.5 feet produced by the second HGL Modeling results. See NTC/Knight Ex. 31 at 2. Asked to rank the modeling results between the first HGL Model run, the second HGL Model run, and his own results, Mr. Davis was unable to say which was better because of the sparseness of the data. Mr. Davis opined that he could conduct another "dozen more model runs," but without additional data he would be "hard pressed" to be able to say which run was more accurate. Tr. 1633. In Mr. Davis' opinion there remain significant uncertainties that cannot be resolved without more data. Inadequate data "precludes . . . reasonable assurance as to exactly where the impacts will travel and exactly what the magnitude of those impacts will be . . . ." Tr. 1637. Ecological Impacts Bruce A. Pruitt, Ph.D., was accepted as an expert in hydrology, soil science, fluvial geomorphology, and wetland sciences. Dr. Pruitt mapped the soil types on the NTC/Knight Property using the Natural Resource Conservation Service ("NRCS") Web Soil Survey and tested soil types by hand-auguring in wetland areas. He characterized the various soil-types on the property by drainage class (relative wetness of the soil under natural conditions) and hydraulic conductivity (permeability). Dr. Pruitt ranked the vulnerability of wetlands within the zone of drawdown predicted by the HGL Model as "very high," "high," or "moderate." The categories were based on the presence of threatened and endangered species, Florida Natural Area Inventor ("FNAI") habitat designation, and the hydrology of the wetland. He assumed that if the water level in the Surficial Aquifer were to be drawn down by 0.3 feet or 0.4 feet then the water level in the seepage bogs at Botheration Creek would be drawn down by the same amount. Wetlands with a vulnerability classification of "very high" will suffer an adverse impact at a drawdown level of 0.2 feet; those at "high" at 0.3 feet and those at "moderate" at 0.5 feet in times of drought. Dr. Pruitt calculated wetland acreage by type using the Florida Cover Classification System. He assigned vulnerability rating for the wetlands within the Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours generated by the HGL Model. Based on Dr. Pruitt's calculations, a total of approximately 4,200 acres of wetlands are likely to be harmed by the predicted drawdown. A majority of these wetlands are located in Washington County. Based on Dr. Pruitt's analysis, it is likely that the NTC/Knight Property contains 1,981 acres of "very highly" vulnerable wetlands; 1,895 acres of "highly" vulnerable wetlands; and 390 acres of "moderately" vulnerable wetlands, which are likely to be harmed by the drawdown in times of drought. In reaching his opinion about the quantification of acres of wetlands likely to be harmed, Dr. Pruitt applied the Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method ("UMAM"). UMAM was designed to address compensatory mitigation in dredge and fill cases. It was not designed for consumptive water use cases. In contrast and damaging to its case of reasonable assurance that natural systems will not be significantly affected, the District did not conduct an analysis to determine loss of wetland function resulting from operation under the Permit. Nor did it determine how much drawdown the affected wetlands could tolerate before they were harmed. Rather than conducting such an analysis, the District chose to rely on implementation of the LTEMP to cure any harm that might be down by drawdown to the Surficial Aquifer. The District and Bay County's wetland scientists opined that there might be a less permeable restrictive layer maintaining water levels above the Surficial Aquifer on the NTC/Knight Property. Dr. Pruitt acknowledged that the NTC/Knight Property had scattered clay layers beneath the surface. It is possible, therefore, that some of the wetland areas he identified as subject to harm have restrictive features under them which would hold water and resist dehydration. In his hand-auguring, however, Dr. Pruitt found no evidence of a less permeable layer. The auguring only went to a depth of three feet and would have to go to a depth of two meters to be definitive. Furthermore, Dr. Pruitt found no evidence of a less permeable layer from well drillings. The District and Bay County did not prove that there is, in fact, such a restrictive layer. NTC/Knight collected water-level data from shallow hand-augured wells and stage recorders at the Botheration Creek Hillside Seepage Bog. The data demonstrate that the water level in the shallow, hand-augured wells at the Botheration Creek Bog is a direct reflection of the level of the Surficial Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer at the Botheration Creek Bog was approximately 95.5 feet NAVD, over 35 feet higher than at Big Blue Lake and the highest measured level south of Big Blue Lake. The Botheration Creek Hillside Seepage Bog is located between the 0.3 and 0.4 foot Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours predicted by the HGL Model. Based on the HGL Model, the District and Bay County's experts estimated the Surficial Aquifer drawdown at this bog would be 0.39 feet. During the approximately one year of NTC/Knight's water-level recording, a drawdown of 0.39 feet would have reduced the frequency and duration of inundation at this bog significantly. For example, an analysis of the approximately one year of data collected by NTC/Knight shows that at the intermediate water-level recorder location in the bog, one 29-day period of inundation would have been reduced to just nine days and that further down gradient in the bog, none of the five instances when the bog was inundated would have occurred. This is consistent with Dr. Pruitt's vulnerability assessment, which finds that the vulnerability of the hillside seepage bogs to drawdown is "very high," that is, these systems are likely to be harmed in times of drought at drawdown levels in the Surficial Aquifer of 0.2 feet or greater. A drawdown of 0.3-0.4 feet in the Surficial Aquifer at the hillside seepage bog along Botheration Creek increases the likelihood that the hillside seepage bogs along Botheration Creek will be lost in times of drought. The littoral shelves of Sand Hill Lakes typically occur along a low gradient above the normal low water level of the lakes. The existence of the shelf promotes seepage sheet flow along a wide expanse. The drawdown will change the flow from seepage sheet flow to concentrated stream flow within gullies. The erosion and increased sedimentation produced by the greater force of the water in the gullies will cause a loss of area needed by certain seepage dependent plants and animals. If Big Blue Lake were to be drawn down by the 0.71 feet predicted by Mr. Davis, the location of the seepage would move down 0.71 feet vertically and an estimated 24.5 feet horizontally. The result would be a reduction in the littoral shelf conducive to seepage-dependent plant communities by approximately nine acres. The impact would likely be significant since the seepage zone is in an area of "very high" vulnerability according to Dr. Pruitt. Between October 2010 and July 2011, NTC/Knight took four measurements of water level at "BCS-01," a stage recorder in Botheration Creek. The measurements showed the water level in the creek at that point to be 0.1 to 0.32 feet. NTC/Knight also sampled for taxa of macroinvertebrates in the reach of the creek. NTC/Knight identified 46 taxa, including mussels and six long-lived taxa. The presence of the long-lived taxa and mussels indicate that the reach of the creek in the vicinity of the stage recorder should be considered to be a perennial stream. Botheration Creek is high-quality water and, as shown by NTC/Knight's sampling, it contains a diverse mix of aquatic invertebrates and fish. A drop in the level of Botheration Creek of 0.2 feet predicted by the HGL Model would have caused the creek to go dry at BCA-01 during three of the four dates on which the water level was measured. Such a drop would convert the reach of the creek in the vicinity of the stage recorder from a perennial to an intermittent stream and would eliminate the reach's viability for long-lived taxa. Similarly, upstream reaches that are intermittent would become ephemeral (streams that flow only during periods of high rainfall). If the Wellfield becomes fully operational as allowed by the Permit, there will be a reduction in the Surficial Aquifer at Botheration Creek of between 0.2 and 0.3 feet. The reduction in the aquifer will reduce flow in Botheration Creek, reduce the volume downstream, including in Pine Log Creek, and reduce out-of-bank flood frequency and duration. The result will be a reduction in nutrients delivered downstream and to the floodplain to the detriment of plants and animal life that depend on them. Additionally, other reaches of the creek that have perennial flow will be converted to intermittent streams and reaches that are intermittent will become ephemeral. The result will be the elimination of plant and animal species currently living in these portions of the creek. The impact of the HGL Model predicted drawdown to steepheads depends on the individual steephead and the drawdown contour at its location and the amount of rainfall. Four steepheads on the NTC/Knight Property could suffer impacts similar to the impact at Russ Steephead to which Dr. Pruitt assigned a high probability of impact. Russ Steephead is located on the NTC/Knight Property above Russ Pond. NTC/Knight installed Surficial Aquifer wells at Russ Steephead between the HGL Model's predicted 0.5 and 0.6 foot Surficial Aquifer drawdown contours. NTC/Knight also installed a stage recorder just downstream from the steephead. During drought, NTC/Knight observed a loss of flow from the sidewall seepage areas and in the Russ Steephead Stream. If the Surficial Aquifer at Russ Pond were to be drawn down by 0.5-0.6 feet, the sidewalls of the Russ Steephead Stream and the stream itself would lose flow in times of drought. The loss of flow would lead to oxidation and loss of organic materials in the stream channel and flood plain, resulting in soil subsidence. If the water level at the terminus of the Russ Steephead Stream were drawn down, headward down cutting in the stream channel would be induced. In such a case, in the words of Dr. Pruitt, "there is a high probability that if drawdown occurs and . . . over a long period of time," the process will make the steephead "look more like a gully . . . ." Tr. 2120. The drawdown will also reduce the frequency and duration of inundation of the sphagnum bogs in the four steepheads likely to be affected by the drawdown. The bogs and the associated animals that depend upon them would be lost. Dr. Means identified a number of temporary ponds within HGL's predicted drawdown of the Surficial Aquifer. Nine were between the 0.3 and 0.6 foot drawdown contour, and two were between the 0.6 and 0.7 foot drawdown contours. These ponds and plant and animal communities dependent upon them would likely be harmed by the drawdowns. Mr. Cantrell offered testimony to rebut the Petitioners' case on wetland impacts. His testimony was based on an evaluation of aerial photography, site visits to the Wellfield, and a one-day trip to the NTC/Knight Property. It is Mr. Cantrell's opinion that if the NTC/Knight Property were to drain, it would be because of a surface water drainage system, such as ditching, not because of drawdown in the Surficial Aquifer caused by operation of the Wellfield. Mr. Cantrell's opinion is that because the Area has been subjected to a wide range of fluctuations in water levels and the wetland systems have survived, operation of the Wellfield will not have significant impacts. Mr. Cantrell's opinion, however, overlooks the effect of constant drawdown during times of severe drought. That wetlands have survived severe drought in the past does not mean they will survive severe drought conditions exacerbated by drawdown caused by operation of the Wellfield. Monitoring Special condition 19 of the Permit requires Bay County to implement the LTEMP after the Permit is issued. The LTEMP requires Bay County to establish a monitoring network, but does not provide the location of any particular monitoring site. Sites identified in the LTEMP are recommended, but the ability to use a particular site is dependent on field verification of suitability and authorization by the landowner. Over half the area designated in the LTEMP from the HGL Model's projected 0.5 foot drawdown in the Surficial Aquifer is located on the NTC/Knight Property. It will be necessary, therefore, to include sites on the NTC/Knight Property in the ultimate environmental monitoring network. The LTEMP's recommended sites do not include monitoring of some of the most susceptible wetland systems: temporary ponds, the Botheration Creek hillside seepage bogs, and the perennial headwaters of Botheration Creek. Without this monitoring, the LTEMP will be unable to detect whether these systems are harmed by withdrawals. The Permit and LTEMP require no more than one-year of baseline data to be collected prior to initiation of water withdrawals. The proposed monitoring time is inadequate to create a sufficient record for use in determining whether a reduction in water levels is attributable to water withdrawals or natural phenomena, such as drought. Baseline monitoring should be conducted for a sufficient duration to ensure that a full range of wet and dry years is captured. The LTEMP describes the types of data that are to be collected. A missing component is sampling for frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians that are sensitive to changes in hydrologic regimes and which depend upon infrequent periods of inundation in order to breed. This type of faunal sampling is particularly important in the temporary ponds and seepage environments. Without sampling for the presence of these species, the LTEMP will be unable to determine whether these populations have been harmed by withdrawals. The LTEMP includes a number of "triggers," that if tripped, require the preparation of an auxiliary report. A number of these triggers make reference to changes in water levels at the level of "significant deviation," an undefined term. More importantly, the LTEMP fails to require any statistical analysis. Without it, the LTEMP will be inadequate to establish whether a reduction in water levels is caused by water withdrawals or another cause. Similarly, other triggers lack sufficient detail to determine when they are tripped, such as those that refer to downward movement of plants. Finally, even if one of these triggers is tripped and an auxiliary report is prepared, nothing in the Permit or LTEMP sets forth the circumstances under which withdrawals would need to be curtailed and by what amount. The purpose of the LTEMP is to determine whether withdrawals are causing harm to the wetlands within the vicinity of the Wellfield. The LTEMP fails to provide reasonable assurance that it will succeed in achieving its purpose. Reasonable-Beneficial Use Use if the Reservoir is Unavailable In the event of Reservoir unavailability, Bay County is likely to need much less than 30 MGD. The need is likely to fall between 7.42 MGD and 9.71 MGD for the current population. In 2013, the need is likely to fall between 9.40 MGD and 12.29 MGD. See NTC/Knight Ex. 5, p. 4 of 4. The Permit, however, does not limit Bay County to emergency or backup use. While Bay County might voluntarily limit withdrawals to emergency use or backup supply, it has unfettered discretion to determine what constitutes an emergency or the necessity for a backup supply. The Permit is also not restricted to essential uses. Authorization of 30 MGD provides more than Bay County's current average daily demand for potable water. If the Permit restricted the use to essential uses, the authorization would be far less than 30 MDG. The District commissioned King Engineering to assist in development of a "Coastal Water Systems Interconnect Project" (the "Interconnect Project"). On average, the utilities subject to the Interconnect Project estimated that 42 percent of the average daily demand is dedicated to essential uses with the remaining 58 percent going to non-essential uses. Consistent with the estimate, the Project set a target of 50 percent of average daily demand to be allowed for use in an emergency. None of the information from the Interconnect Project, however, was used by the District in setting the limits of withdrawal in the Permit. b. Daily Use Bay County claims the 5 MGD annual average allocation under the Permit is needed for several reasons, principally the maintenance of pumps. Bay County's justification for 5 MGD is found in testimony from Mr. Lackemacher and a document he authored entitled, "Confidential Draft for Internal Use Only 5 MGD Pumping Rate" (the "Lackemacher Confidential Draft"), admitted as Bay County Ex. 24. Mr. Lackemacher's testimony follows: A. The fact is that there are no absolute knowns when we're talking about what needs to be. Q. What do you mean? A. Well, here we have a document [Bay County Ex. 24] where I talk about rationalization for 5 million gallons a day, why we would need it, mechanical reasons, financial reasons, regulatory reasons. I always felt that it was very difficult to justify a number. I don't know. We haven't designed the system. We haven't got all of the wells in. We don't know what their specific yields are. There's unknowns here. So do we need 2 million gallons a day or 5 million gallons a day? I don't know. I don't know that. But here is the rationalization for 5 million if that's in fact what we need. We may very well find out that we don't need 5 million gallons a day. Q. Is that because you don't know the precise locations of the well and how they're going to be piped and distributed? A. That's absolutely true. Q. Well, did you in this report, Exhibit 24, did you make some reasonable assumptions? A. I based it on some of the values as you discussed or as I pointed out earlier from Hatch Mott MacDonald's preliminary design. * * * Q. And do you feel confident that your analysis supported that in the area of 5 million gallons a day is what would be needed to operate the wellfield? A. Yes. And that's why the paper was generated that [is] a justification for 5 million gallons a day, here's what we think we would need. Tr. 209-10. The Lackemacher Confidential Draft is a one-page, written justification for the 5 MGD. Based on the Hatch Mott McDonald Report, see tr. 210, it considers regulatory, mechanical and financial factors. It is not supported, however, by engineering analysis. Any financial analysis found in the Hatch Mott McDonald Report, moreover, is far from complete. The factors taken into consideration are recited in the most general of terms. For example, of four such factors, the document lists the second as: "All water pumps are designed to run - turning pumps on and off is not the best situation for the overall electrical efficiency or the mechanicals of a pump." Bay County Ex. 24. Consistent with Mr. Lackemacher's testimony, the document concludes that the amount of water needed to run each well is unknown. The financial justification is based on costs shown in the Hatch Mott MacDonald Report for construction and operation of 22 wells, ten more wells than are contained in the Wellfield and without any analysis of revenue to recoup the costs. The financial justification is a bare conclusion on the part of Mr. Lackemacher: We cannot afford to operate a well field at a financial loss, based on this fact alone we would have to pump a minimum of 4.49 MGD. Combined with the fact that we don't know what volumes of water have to be turned over to ensure water quality 5 MGD seems quite reasonable. Bay County Ex. 24. The Lackemacher Confidential Draft is dated May 17, 2011. It was not part of Bay County's Application nor was it submitted to the District prior to the decision to issue the Permit. Although the District attempted to obtain information from Bay County about what was needed for maintenance, Bay County did not provide it. As Mr. Gowans testified, "[t]hen I finally told staff, [s]top asking, we're not going to get the numbers . . . ." Tr. 552. The District performed no analysis to determine the minimum amount of water needed to maintain the Wellfield. In contrast, NTC/Knight and Washington County presented the testimony of Phillip Waller, an engineer accepted as an expert in the design and construction of potable water systems, including groundwater wells, surface water, and transmission and distribution of drinking water. Mr. Waller testified that if the wells were connected to a central treatment system, there would not be the need to flush the pipeline for disinfection prior to use of the well in an emergency. Only 2.4 million gallons per year or 6,500 gallons per day would be needed to maintain optimum operating conditions, an amount far less than 5 MGD. Mr. Waller's experience when groundwater is used as a backup, moreover, is that they are operated periodically. While prudent to periodically operate backup wells especially in advance of hurricane season, vertical pumps in wells, unlike horizontal pumps, do not have a need for frequent operation because of even force distribution. They certainly do not need to be continuously operated. "In fact, wells routinely are idle for months at a time." Tr. 1123. Interference with Existing Legal Users In its Revised Staff Report dated July 18, 2011, the District wrote: Nearby Users: Under the most intensive pumping activity, drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer is predicted to be approximately 15 feet in the vicinity of the nearest private wells. Water level declines of this magnitude may cause water levels to fall below the level of the pump intake in some privately-owned wells. Joint Ex. Vol. IV, Tab Q, p. 4. The District's high estimate of the number of wells used by existing legal users that might suffer impacts approaches 900. The exact number or whether any existing legal users would be likely to suffer impacts was not proven. Alternatives Groundwater wells, if installed and attached to the fitting in the existing transmission line that delivers water from the Pump Station to the Water Treatment Plant, could serve as backup to the Reservoir. Bay County did not conduct a study of whether groundwater in the area of the transmission line was adequate to serve as an alternative. Mr. Waller, on behalf of NTC/Knight and Washington County, on the other hand, testified that the transmission line could support ten wells with a capacity of 10 MGD and could be constructed at a cost of $12 million, far less than the Wellfield. The area of the transmission line is in an area identified by the District as acceptable for the creation of potable water wells. The area does not present a significant risk of saltwater intrusion if not used continuously. The water meets the drinking water requirements for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health. The existing transmission line alternative is located near the existing raw water supply line which minimizes the need for additional piping. There is sufficient length along the existing raw water pipeline to accommodate ten wells. The existing transmission line alternative, therefore, has significant potential to succeed as a water supply backup to the Reservoir. NTC/Knight and Washington County, through Mr. Waller, also proposed another alternative: an intake at Bayou George. Near Highway 231, the main pipeline from the intake would run along public right-of-way. North of the existing intake in Williams Bayou and three miles north of the Dam, the proposed intake would be less susceptible to contamination from storm surge. Neither Bay County nor the District presented a thorough analysis of any alternative to the Wellfield. In contrast, NTC/Knight and Washington County presented the testimony of Mr. Waller that there are two alternatives that could be constructed at much less cost than the Wellfield and that have significant potential of providing backup supply.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order that denies the application of Bay County for the individual water use permit at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's water use permit should be revoked for nonuse of the permit for a period of two years or more.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The District is a state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing water use permits under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40B- 2 for the geographic area under its statutory jurisdiction. Alachua County is within that geographic jurisdiction. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices at 700 Northwest Cheeota Avenue, High Springs, in northern Alachua County. It owns approximately 700 acres in High Springs (west of Interstate Highway 75) on which it operates a church retreat and summer camping and recreational facility known as Camp Kulaqua. The property surrounds, and is contiguous to, Hornsby Spring, a first-order magnitude spring (having a flow rate of 100 CFS or greater) which, under normal conditions, discharges into the nearby Santa Fe River. Hornsby Spring is one of 296 documented springs within the District's jurisdiction. After receiving an overture from a representative of a private water bottling company, on September 28, 1999, Respondent filed an application for a General Water Use Permit in Township 7 South, Range 17 East, Section 26, in High Springs. In its application, Respondent represented that it desired a daily allocation of 2,000,000 gallons; that it intended to install two 12-inch wells, each having a capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute, just east of, and upgradient from, Hornsby Spring; and that all water withdrawals would be used in conjunction with a privately-owned commercial spring water bottling facility to be located on its property. The application also represented that the facility would employ 36 persons and operate 168 hours per week. The application was reviewed by a former District hydrogeologist, William H. Kirk. During the review process, and in response to Mr. Kirk's request for more information, Respondent provided a comparison of the requested allocation with the overall flow of Hornsby Spring. This was because Mr. Kirk was concerned that the requested allocation was "a bit high," and he wanted to ensure that the issuance of the permit would not cause harm to, or adversely affect, the water resources. Under a professional guideline that Mr. Kirk used, if the applicant could show that the cumulative amount being withdrawn was to be less than ten percent of what the available data showed to be the mean spring flow, the District would consider it to be "an acceptable impact." Notwithstanding Mr. Kirk's use of this guideline, the District points out that there is no District rule or policy sanctioning the ten percent rule, and at hearing it denied that this standard is used by the District in assessing water use applications. Further, the Permit itself does not refer to a relationship between spring flow and the size of the allocation. Even so, this analysis was considered by Mr. Kirk in determining whether Respondent had given reasonable assurance that the spring would not be impacted. In its response to the request for additional information, Respondent reduced its requested allocation to 750,000 gallons per day and indicated that if a bottling plant were to be constructed on its property, approximately 700,000 gallons of the total allocation would be consumed in "bulk transfer and bottling," with the remainder for camp use. More specifically, Respondent indicated that it would allocate 490,000 gallons per day for bulk transport, 210,000 gallons per day for spring bottling water, and 50,000 gallons per day for incidental uses at its property. By reducing the allocation from 2,000,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day, Respondent's requested average daily allocation represented only 0.4 percent of the average daily spring flow as measured over the last 28 years. The reduced allocation satisfied Mr. Kirk's concern that Respondent demonstrate a reasonable demand and a reasonable need for that allocation, and he recommended approval of the application.2 On February 25, 2000, the District approved the application and issued Water Use Permit No. 2-99-00130 (Permit).3 The Permit authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.7500 million gallons per day (750,000 gallons per day) or a maximum daily withdrawal and use of 0.7500 million gallons per day with an annual allocation not to exceed 273.750 million gallons (273,750,000 gallons) per calendar year in conjunction with the operation of a privately-owned water bottling plant. The Permit expires on February 25, 2020. After the Permit was issued, under the regulatory process in place, Respondent was required first to obtain a permit for a temporary test well which would be used to collect information concerning the site of the proposed activity, and to then file an application for permits authorizing the construction and operation of the two 12-inch production wells. The Permit contains a number of conditions, two of which require a brief comment. First, Condition No. 2 provides that "[t]his permit is classified as unconfined [F]loridan aquifer for privately owned bottled water plant." This means that all water withdrawals must be made from the unconfined Floridan aquifer, as opposed to the spring head of Hornsby Spring. (Respondent's proposed siting of its two production wells 660 yards east of the spring is consistent with this provision.) Second, Condition No. 4 provides that "[t]he permittee shall submit daily pumpage records on a monthly basis to the [District]." Pumpage reports are filed by permittees so that the District can determine whether the permit is actually being used, and if so, to ensure that the amount of water being withdrawn under the permit does not exceed the authorized allocation. As it turned out, pumpage reports were never filed by Respondent. (However, the record shows that the District has never strictly enforced this requirement for any permittee.) In late 2002, the District staff undertook a review of the nine water bottling permit holders within its jurisdiction, including Respondent. That category of permit holders was selected for review because of the small number of permits and the limited resources of the District staff. (In all, the District has probably issued several thousand permits to other types of users.) On February 4, 2003, the District served its Complaint under the authority of Sections 120.60 and 373.243, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-2.341. As grounds for revoking the permit, the District alleged that there was "non-use of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of two (2) years or more." Although Respondent contends that it should have been given an opportunity to correct the nonuse allegation before the Complaint was issued, nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act or District rules requires that this be done. Until the issuance of the Complaint against Respondent in early 2003, and similar Complaints against eight other permit holders at the same time, the District had never invoked this statutory provision.4 There is no evidence to support Respondent's contention that the Complaints were issued for "purely political reasons." On March 4, 2003, Respondent requested a formal hearing challenging the District's proposed action. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the issues have been broadly described as follows: whether Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes, is to be strictly or liberally construed; whether Respondent's nonuse is based upon extreme hardship for reasons beyond its control; and whether the District is equitably estopped from permit revocation. (According to the District, even if the Permit is revoked, such revocation is without prejudice to Respondent reapplying for, and receiving, another permit so long as it meets all applicable requirements.) Equitable Estoppel Respondent first contends that the District is estopped from revoking its Permit on the theory that, under the circumstances here, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. For that doctrine to apply, however, Respondent must show that the District made a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; that Respondent relied upon that representation; and that the District then changed its position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent. See, e.g., Salz v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 432 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The District issued Respondent's Permit on the condition that Respondent operate in conformity with all pertinent statutes and regulations. This finding is consistent with language on the face of the Permit, which states that the Permit "may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder." Respondent relied on the District's representation that it could use the Permit so long as it complied with all statutes and regulations. In reliance on that representation, in addition to staff time, after its Permit was issued, Respondent expended "somewhere around" $70,000.00 to $74,000.00 for conducting water quality testing; sending cave divers underground to ascertain the correct location of the portion of the aquifer on which to place its production wells; drilling a 6-inch test well in August 2000; obtaining the City of High Springs' approval in March 2000 for industrial zoning on a 10-acre tract of land on which to site a "water plant"; and engaging the services of a professional who assisted Respondent in "seeking out businesses and getting the right qualifications of the spring water to make sure that it was a marketable water." The District has never asserted anything different from its original position: that if Petitioner complied with all statutes and rules, it could continue to lawfully make water withdrawals under its Permit. The issuance of the Complaint did not represent a change in the District's position. Because a change in position in a manner that was detrimental to Respondent did not occur, the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel are not present. Was the Permit Used? A preliminary review by District staff indicated that Respondent had never filed the daily pumpage reports on a monthly basis and had never requested permits authorizing the construction of the two 12-inch production wells. These preliminary observations were confirmed at final hearing, along with the fact that Respondent has never entered into an agreement with a water bottling company (although draft agreements were once prepared); that Respondent has never constructed a water bottling facility; and that no operations were ever conducted under the Permit. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent did not use its Permit for the two-year period after it was issued, as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's contention that the evidence fails to support this finding belies the evidence of record. In an effort to show that it actually used the Permit, Respondent points out that in August 2000 it applied for, and received a permit to construct, an unmetered 6-inch test well in association with its General Water Use Permit. (Respondent sometimes erroneously refers to the test well as a test production well. This is incorrect as the well is a test well, and not a production well.) After the test well was installed, at some point Respondent says it began withdrawing approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water from that well for incidental uses associated with the operation of Camp Kulaqua.5 These withdrawals were made on the assumption that the test well permit fell under the broad umbrella of the General Water Use Permit. (Respondent also has a permitted 6- inch diameter well and an unregulated 4-inch well on its premises, both of which are used for water supply needs at Camp Kulaqua.) It is true, as Respondent asserts, that its Permit authorized incidental withdrawals of up to 50,000 gallons per day for unspecified uses at Camp Kulaqua. However, these withdrawals are authorized under the General Water Use Permit and not the test well permit. The two permits are separate and distinct. On the one hand, a test well is intended to be temporary in nature and used only for the purpose of test well development and collecting information regarding the height of the aquifer and water quality at the site of the proposed activity. Conversely, withdrawals for any other purpose, even incidental, must be made from the production wells, which are only authorized by the General Water Use Permit. Before a test well can be used for normal consumptive purposes, the permit holder must seek a modification of the permit to include it as a part of its general water use permit. Here, no such modification was sought by Respondent, and no authorization was given by the District. Therefore, Respondent's incidental water uses associated with its test well cannot be counted as "uses" for the purpose of complying with the use requirement in Section 373.243(4), Florida Statutes. In light of the District's credible assertion to the contrary, Respondent's contention that it is common practice to lawfully withdraw water from a test well for incidental consumptive purposes has been rejected. (It is noted, however, that the District has not charged Respondent with violating the terms of its test well permit.) Extreme Hardship Under Section 373.243, Florida Statutes (which was enacted in 1972), the District is authorized to revoke a water use permit "for nonuse of the water supply allowed by the permit for a period of 2 years." However, if the user "can prove that his or her nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control," revocation of the permit is not warranted. The phrase "extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the user's control" is not defined by statute or rule. In the context of this case, however, the District considers an extreme hardship to occur under two scenarios. First, if the aquifer level has dropped so low due to drought conditions that a permit holder cannot access the water through its well, its nonuse is excusable. Alternatively, if an emergency order has been issued by the District directing permit holders (including Respondent) to stop pumping due to certain conditions, an extreme hardship has occurred. (Presumably, a severe water shortage would precipitate such an order.) In this case, the District issued a water shortage advisory, but not an emergency order, due to a "severe drought," indicating that users could still pump water, but were encouraged to voluntarily reduce their usage. This advisory remained in effect from the summer of 1998 until the spring of 2003, when a severe drought ended. However, no emergency order was ever issued by the District. Respondent contends that its nonuse was due to an extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control. More specifically, it argues that a severe drought occurred in Alachua County during the years 1998-2003, and that under these conditions, federal regulations prevented it from withdrawing water for bottling purposes, which was the primary purpose for securing a permit. Further, even if it had withdrawn water during these drought conditions, such withdrawals could have adversely impacted Hornsby Spring and constituted a violation of a District requirement that water resources not be adversely impacted. Because an investment of several hundred thousand dollars was required to drill and install the two production wells, Respondent contends it was not financially prudent to make that type of investment and begin operations until normal spring conditions returned. These contentions are discussed in greater detail below. Around September 7, 1999, a representative of a water bottling company first approached Respondent about the possibility of the two jointly operating a water bottling plant and/or transporting water in bulk from Respondent's property. Prompted by this interest, less than three weeks later Respondent filed its application for a water use permit (although at that time it did not mention on the application that off-site bulk transfers would occur), and a permit was eventually issued in February 2000. Later, and through a professional firm it employed, Respondent had discussions with representatives of several bottling companies, including Great Springs Waters of America (Great Springs) and Perrier Group of America. Apparently, these more serious discussions with a potential suitor did not take place until either late 2000 or the spring of 2001. Periodic measurements taken by District staff at Hornsby Spring reflected natural drought conditions from April 2000 to April 2003. As noted earlier, this was the product of a "severe drought" which took place between the summer of 1998 and the spring of 2003; the drought was one of a magnitude that occurs only once in every 50 to 100 years. During the years 2000 through 2002, the spring had zero flow or was barely flowing much of the time.6 Had Respondent pumped water during 20 out of the 24 months after the Permit was issued, it could have potentially violated the requirement that it not harm Hornsby Spring. This fact is acknowleged by a District witness who agreed that if the "spring is not flowing, . . . [pumping] would have an [adverse] impact." Even as late as October 2003, the spring had tannic discoloration caused by the lengthy drought conditions. The parties agree, however, that there is no water shortage in the District at the present time. To illustrate the difficulty that it experienced in obtaining a joint venture partner for water bottling purposes, Respondent established that in the spring of 2001, a Great Springs representative visited the site when the spring was "barely flowing." For obvious reasons, Respondent could not "bring a party there who would want to enter into a business [agreement]" under those conditions. These same conditions remained in effect during most of the two year period. The District points out, however, that even though the spring was low or barely flowing, so long as the aquifer itself was not too low, Respondent could still withdraw water from the aquifer, since Condition 2 of the Permit authorizes withdrawals from the aquifer, and not the spring. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that when a spring ceases to flow, the aquifer has simply dropped below the level of the spring vent; even under these circumstances, however, there may still be a substantial quantity of water in the aquifer available for pumping. Assuming that it could still lawfully pump water when the spring was dry or barely flowing without causing adverse impacts to the spring, Respondent was still subject to federal regulations which govern the bottling of spring water. See Title 21, Part 165, C.F.R. For spring water to be marketed as bottled "spring water," 21 C.F.R. § 165.119(2)(vi) requires that the water "be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring." This means that the bore hole had to be physically connected with the cave system feeding Hornsby Spring or produce water of the same quality as that discharging from the spring. The regulation goes on to provide that "[i]f spring water is collected with the use of an external force [such as by a pump], water must continue to flow naturally to the surface of the earth through the spring's natural orifice." While this regulation obviously does not prohibit Respondent from pumping water, since that authority lies within the District's exclusive jurisdiction, it does provide that in order to use spring water for bottling purposes, the water must continue to flow naturally from the aquifer to the spring. If it does not, the water cannot be used for this purpose. Because Hornsby Spring had zero flow for parts of 2001 and 2002, and severely reduced flows during most of the other time during the two-year period ending February 2002, Respondent was effectively prevented by the foregoing regulation from using the water for bottling purposes. Therefore, Respondent's nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond its control -- a severe drought lasting throughout the two-year period after the Permit was issued, and federal regulations which prevented it from using water for the purpose for which the Permit was issued. Thus, the nonuse is excusable.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection may issue to Respondent Tampa Bay Water a variance from the requirements, in Rules 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, that an application for a permit to construct and operate a drinking water system contain drawings of the project with sufficient detail to describe clearly the work to be undertaken and complete specifications of the project to supplement the drawings.
Findings Of Fact Inception of Tampa Bay Water, Consolidated Permit, and Other Documentation for the Production of Drinking Water Respondent Tampa Bay Water (TBW) is a wholesale public water supply utility. TBW is governed by a nine-member board of directors with one member each from the municipalities of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and New Port Richey and two members each from the counties of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco. The purpose of TBW is to use group resources to find regional solutions to the problems of water supply in the region. Over two million persons in the three-county area rely on TBW for their drinking water. The predecessor of TBW was the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA), which was created in 1974. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority was also a wholesale public water supply authority. However, the authority operated as a cooperative entity, and TBW operates as a regulatory entity. In 1996, WCRWSA sought to renew its permit from Intervenor Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to allow continued withdrawals from four of its eleven major wellfields. Concerned with the environmental impacts, such as drawdowns of the water levels of wetlands, streams, and lakes, from the environmental, if not regulatory, overpumping of the wellfields, SWFWMD denied the application for the quantities requested. An Administrative Law Judge at the Division of Administrative Hearings conducted a hearing and issued a recommended order finding adverse environmental effects from overpumping, but recommending that SWFWMD issue the requested permits subject to certain conditions. Subsequent negotiations resulted in the parties' entering into a series of agreements covering withdrawals from the four wellfields that had been the subject of the administrative hearing and seven more wellfields that were approaching repermitting (11 Wellfields), as well as a series of other matters. On May 20, 1998, WCRWSA, the three member counties, the three member municipalities, and SWFWMD entered into the Northern Tampa Bay New Water Supply and Ground Water Withdrawal Reduction Agreement (Partnership Agreement). The Partnership Agreement requires WCRWSA to bring one or more projects online, by December 31, 2002, to produce at least 38 million gallons per day (MGD) and, by December 31, 2007, to produce at least 85 MGD of new water supply. The Partnership Agreement requires SWFWMD to provide WCRWSA with $183 million toward eligible water supply projects. The Partnership Agreement notes that the then-current Master Water Plan of WCRWSA recognizes that "an aggressive conservation and demand management program is an integral component of a sustainable water supply." (Joint Exhibit 3, p. 31.) The Partnership Agreement notes that the then-current Master Water Plan states that the conservation program was expected to reduce use by 10 MGD per day by 2000 and 17 MGD by 2005. From the effective date of the agreement through December 31, 2002, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 158 MGD, based on a rolling 36-month average. For the next five years, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 121 MGD, based on an annual average. After that, effective December 31, 2007, the Partnership Agreement requires a reduction in pumping of the 11 Wellfields to 90 MGD, also based on an annual average. Three weeks after the execution of the Partnership Agreement, WCRWSA was reorganized into TBW in June 1998 through the execution of two documents: an Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement dated June 10, 1998 (Interlocal Agreement), and a Master Water Supply Contract dated June 10, 1998. TBW assumed WCRWSA's rights and responsibilities under the Partnership Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement empowers TBW to produce and supply drinking water "in such manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of Water from concentrated areas." (Joint Exhibit 1, pp. 20-21.) The Interlocal Agreement incorporates the phased-in reductions in withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields that are set forth in the Partnership Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement notes that, if the Partnership Agreement provides for extensions of the deadlines, the deadlines contained in the Interlocal Agreement shall likewise be subject to extension. Applying to the 11 Wellfields, SWFWMD issued TBW a Consolidated Permit, which was issued on December 15, 1998, and became effective on January 1, 1999. Complementing the Partnership Agreement, which reflects SWFWMD's resource- development role, is the Consolidated Permit, which reflects SWFWMD's regulatory role. The Consolidated Permit incorporates the phased-in reductions of withdrawals, as set forth above, for the 11 Wellfields. Although the deadlines for phased-in reductions are conditioned on the funding to be provided by SWFWMD, pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, these deadlines are otherwise unconditional and firm. The Consolidated Permit expressly provides for extensions of deadlines, except the deadlines set for the phased-in reductions of withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. The Consolidated Permit imposes upon TBW extensive responsibilities regarding environmental monitoring, reporting, and mitigation. These responsibilities extend to groundwater, wetlands, and surface waters, as TBW must, among other things, monitor and report levels in the surficial and Floridan aquifers and potentiometric surfaces in the Floridan aquifer in the vicinity of the 11 Wellfields, as well as in the vicinity of selected wetlands and surface waters. The Consolidated Permit sets specific "regulatory levels" for these resources. Present and Future Tampa Bay Water Facilities, Including the Surface Water Treatment Plant A majority of TBW's production facilities consists of the 11 Wellfields. In an effort to supplement these production sources so as to comply with the phased-in reduction deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit and other documents, TBW annually adopts a New Water Plan, which describes capital planning for drinking water production facilities. The June 2000 New Water Plan summarizes the requirements of the Partnership Agreement. The June 2000 New Water Plan notes that TBW reaffirmed its Master Water Plan and New Water Plan projects in April 2000. These projects include the Enhanced Surface Water System, which includes the Tampa Bay Regional Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP), Tampa Bay Reservoir Project (Reservoir), and projects obtaining water from the Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and Tampa Bypass Canal. Other projects, besides the Enhanced Surface Water System, include Seawater Desalination (Desal Plant). The June 2000 New Water Plan states that the Enhanced Surface Water System is eligible for a maximum of $120 million from SWFWMD, pursuant to its funding obligation under the Partnership Agreement. This case involves the means by which the SWTP will be permitted, and, in consideration of the manner of permitting, this case involves the means by which the SWTP will be designed and constructed. The June 2000 New Water Plan notes that TBW and USFilter Operating Services, Inc. (USFilter) have entered into a contract for the latter to design, build, and operate (DBO) the SWTP (DBO Contract). The June 2000 New Water Plan reports that USFilter is currently constructing an access road to the site. Among current issues, the June 2000 New Water Plan describes this case, noting that TBW obtained a variance from Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) allowing a design, build (DB) approach to permitting the SWTP. The June 2000 Water Plan states that the present challenge "has the potential to delay the completion of the [SWTP] by an estimated 8 months, subsequently delaying delivery of the initial 22 mgd (dry weather conditions) of new surface water to the regional system until May 2003 and more likely final acceptance of the [SWTP] to September 2003." (Joint Exhibit 5, p. 4.) (The accuracy of this statement is open to debate because SWFWMD granted an environmental resource permit for the SWTP project only on June 27, 2000--before which no significant alteration of the land could have taken place.) In the meantime, the June 2000 New Water Plan predicts a water supply shortfall of 100,000 to 2 million gallons per day in the South-Central service area of Hillsborough County. Addressing the SWTP, the June 2000 New Water Plan states that TBW purchased the site in October 1999 and released a Request for Proposals on July 19, 1999. Four pre-qualified DBO teams responded on October 18, 1999. The June 2000 New Water Plan erroneously states that TBW applied for a public drinking water facility construction permit (Water Treatment Permit) in October 1999. Actually, in September or October, TBW prefiled with the Hillsborough County Health Department (Health Department) its application for a Water Treatment Permit and paid the $7500 filing fee. The purpose of this courtesy filing or prefiling was to allow Health Department representatives to examine the application, including drawings and specifications for the SWTP, and perhaps expedite the approval process, once TBW filed a formal application. The June 2000 New Water Plan reports that the SWTP will have a peak day, surface water treatment capacity of 60 MGD and will be located on a 433-acre site near U.S. Route 301 and Broadway Avenue in central Hillsborough County. The June 2000 New Water Plan states that the SWTP project schedule calls for completion of construction by March 2003 with plant startup and testing in May 2003 and final acceptance testing in September 2003. The June 2000 New Water Plan estimates that detailed design, site permitting, and construction of the SWTP will cost $84.3 million, and the annual operation and maintenance expenses will be $7.9 million. As for the Desal Plant, the June 2000 New Water Plan reports that TBW will pursue a design, build, own, operate, and transfer (DBOOT) approach to acquire a plant to produce, initially, 25 MGD and capable of expansion by an additional 10 MGD. The June 2000 New Water Plan states that this plant will cost a total of about $96 million in capital expenses and about $19 million annually to operate. Procurement of the Surface Water Treatment Plant Design, Build, Operate Contract and Basis of Design TBW issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) that invited base and alternative proposals for the SWTP. TBW hired Parsons Engineering Sciences to prepare a preliminary design of the SWTP, so as to assist in the preparation of the proposals; although offerors could use alternative designs to the Parsons base design, all proposals had to meet the performance standards specified in the RFP. After publishing the RFP in papers and technical journals and on the Internet, TBW was able to prequalify five teams of offerors. Four of the five prequalified offerors submitted proposals. TBW received a total of nine proposals because each offeror submitted a base proposal and one alternative proposal, and one offeror submitted a second alternative proposal. At its January board meeting, TBW selected the USFilter proposal. No party filed a bid protest to the specifications of the RFP or the selection of USFilter and its team. After the selection of USFilter, TBW entered into negotiations with USFilter. During this process, USFilter agreed, at its expense, to add sand to the granulated activated carbon filters to remove fine particles more efficiently, even though it cannot recover the resulting cost of $1.5 million before or after the commencement of operations. TBW and USFilter entered into the DBO Contract on April 10, 2000 (DBO Contract). The DBO Contract identifies "Design Requirements" that "are intended to include the basic design principles, concepts and requirements for the [c]onstruction . . but do not include the detailed design or indicate or describe each and every item required for full performance of the physical [c]onstruction . . .." (Joint Exhibit 23, Section 1.2.6.) The "Design Requirements" are Schedule 6 to the DBO Contract. Schedule 6 contains all of the individual, technical specifications for the SWTP. Schedule 6 occupies two of the four volumes of large, three-ringed binders forming the DBO Contract. The DBO Contract identifies USFilter, Clark, and Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (Camp Dresser) as the DBO team for the SWTP project. Camp Dresser is providing design services, Clark is performing the construction, and USFilter is providing the operation and maintenance services for at least 15 years, as well as the financial guarantee, through its corporate parent. The DBO Contract provides TBW with a fixed construction cost, fixed operating costs, and guaranteed finished water quality. Schedule 8 assures that finished water quality will meet all applicable state and federal drinking water quality standards. Two witnesses at the hearing testified that TBW exacted from USFilter assurances of water quality that, as to certain parameters, will exceed applicable state and federal drinking water quality standards. The DBO Contract provides TBW with a firm completion date, subject to design modifications requested by TBW and uncontrollable circumstances, such as acts of God, raw water whose quality exceeds the maximum limits, or the delay caused by this case. A key document in this case is the Basis of Design Report (Basis of Design), which was prepared by the DBO team in April 2000. Acknowledging the phased-in withdrawal limitations and potential for fines for not meeting the deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit, the Basis of Design describes the purpose of the DBO process as follows: By utilizing the [DBO] approach for the [SWTP], [TBW] expects to secure substantial benefits . . .[,] includ[ing] costs savings, innovative design, reduced risk of schedule and cost excesses, long-term contracted facility operations, and maintenance efficiencies and guaranties. (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 1-2.) The Basis of Design reports that the SWTP will be located on a 100-acre parcel within a 435-acre tract that will also accommodate facilities for groundwater treatment and storage of the treated groundwater, treated surface water from the SWTP, and treated saline water from the Desal Plant. The Basis of Design identifies the sources of raw water for the SWTF as the Tampa Bypass Canal, Hillsborough River, and Alafia River. Once online, the reservoir will help normalize quantities of available raw water throughout the dry season. The Basis of Design describes the main treatment process as pretreatment, including pH adjustment with sulfuric acid or caustic soda, powdered activated car feed, and ferric sulfate coagulant addition; coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation using a high-rate ballasted sedimentation process known by its tradename as ACTIFLO; ozonoation for primary disinfection, taste and odor control, and partial conversion of dissolved organic carbon to an assimilable or biodegradable form; biologically active filtration for turbidity reduction, taste and odor control; reduction of biodegradable organic carbon; and post-treatment, including secondary disinfection using chloramines. The finished water will then be pumped into tanks for storage and blending before release into the distribution facilities. Distinguishing the DB process from the typical design, bid, build (DBB) process, the Basis of Design states: a very significant amount of process studies and pre-engineering was performed by the Project Team in support of its [DBO p]roposal. This work included a set of drawings covering all disciplines and developed to the 25 to 30 percent completion stage at a minimum with some drawings developed to a greater degree. This stage of drawing development is significantly beyond the sketches and diagrams usually provided in Basis of Design or Preliminary Design Reports. For this [Basis of Design,] the referenced drawings are attached and should be examined when reviewing this [Basis of Design]. As such, a relatively small number of figures are contained within this [Basis of Design]. (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 1-4.) The Basis of Design notes that the Project Team conducted "pilot-scale" studies of the chosen treatment processes using Lake Manatee raw water. The purpose of these studies was to validate the selected treatment processes, provide water quality data, and establish appropriate operating criteria, such as coagulant dosages. The Basis of Design addresses raw water quality issues. One table sets out values for 30 different water quality parameters for each of the three raw water sources. The Basis of Design discloses expected water quality data for 11 water quality parameters. Of particular interest are total nitrogen and total phosphorus because, as noted in the Basis of Design, the algal life-cycle increases dissolved organic carbon and nutrient concentrations in reservoir water, and the "severity of this problem is impossible to predict." (Joint Exhibit 8, pp. 2-4.) The expected water quality values for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, respectively, are, on average, 0.8 and 0.55 mg/L and, at maximum, 1.6 and 2.1 mg/L. Each of the three surface waters approaches the average values, but none approaches the maximum values, for total nitrogen. The same is true for total phosphorus for the Tampa Bypass Canal and Hillsborough River. However, for the Alafia River, total phosphorus is 2.09 mg/L, so the raw water from the Alafia River may present a substantial treatment challenge, as it exceeds even the maximum expected value for total phosphorus. An error in Table 2-4 in reporting the maximum and average values of manganese (either the maximum value should be 0.02 mg/L or the average value should be 0.001 mg/L) and the omission of a turbidity parameter expressed in NTUs precludes analysis of these water quality parameters. However, the other expected parameters appear to reflect the actual water quality of these three surface waters. Section 4 of the Basis of Design describes the facilities and design criteria for the SWTP. This section begins with site grading, roadways, yardpiping, and stormwater management and extends to detailed discussions of the pretreatment and treatment processes, including the ACTIFLO, ozone contactor, and biologically active filtration. Urgency of New Means of Producing Drinking Water The SWTP is the hub of a network of production, storage, transmission, and distribution facilities that TBW plans to bring online in order to meet the requirements and deadlines set forth in the Consolidated Permit and other documents. The urgency for bringing this component of these new facilities online as soon as possible is due to environmental reasons, as well as the financial and legal reasons set forth above. Overpumping of existing wellfields has drawn down water levels in surface waters and wetlands, to the detriment of the overall level of biodiversity supported by these natural resources. Some lakes have been down 10 years, and a few have been down 40 or 50 years. During the recent drought, the City of Tampa, which obtains water from the Hillsborough River, lacked adequate volumes of surface water from which to produce sufficient finished water to meet the demand of its customers. Not surprisingly, these supply problems are accompanied by record withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. Withdrawals in May and June of this year were the highest monthly withdrawals on record--208 MGD and 175 MGD, respectively. If the drought continues and TBW continues to meet the demands of its customers, TBW's withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields will exceed the permitted 158 MGD, on a rolling 36-month average, by April 2001. Wellfield overpumping has stressed the groundwaters. Although surface waters respond to substantial rains in as little as a day or two, groundwater takes significantly longer to respond. The surficial water table is as much as 20 feet below ground level, and the Floridan Aquifer is even deeper. The surficial aquifer does not begin to respond to substantial rains for one week, and the Floridan Aquifer begins to respond in two to four weeks. The condition of the surficial and Floridan aquifers affects the Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal, which are significantly recharged by the surficial and, sometimes, the Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer is especially important to the Tampa Bypass Canal, whose rock bed has been breached. During dry periods, the two aquifers are the primary sources of recharge for these two surface waters. The Alafia River is more confined, but gets water from the Floridan Aquifer through two springs at the head of the river. TBW has already made substantial gains through conservation and has met the goal of nearly 10 MGD for 2000. Over the next 20 years, maximum potential gains are expected to be no more than 74-94 MGD. Conservation will continue to play an important role in securing adequate drinking water supplies in the Tampa Bay area, but conservation, even in conjunction with reclaimed water, will not suffice, especially when future population growth in the area is considered. TBW also manages wellfield production efficiently. Under its Optimized Regulatory Operations Plan, TBW collects and analyzes wellfield data to determine which wellfield to tap, notwithstanding specific limits set by wellfield, in order to minimize environmental damage. The consumptive use permits issued to TBW for the surface waters that will provide raw water to the SWTP restrict the amounts and timing of the removals. Additionally, a hydrobiological monitoring program requires the collection and analysis of data to safeguard against adverse effects in the rivers and, downstream, in the estuary. The contractual deadline for delivery of the SWTP is September 30, 2002. The timeframe for bringing online the SWTP necessarily relies on acceptance testing in the wet season, during which 60-65 percent of the annual rain occurs. The wet season extends from mid June to the end of September. Acceptance testing of the SWTP is imperative toward the end of this period because this is when the water quality of the surface waters bears the highest levels of the contaminants. Thus, if delays postpone beyond the wet season the point at which acceptance testing can take place, the postponement will effectively be until the next wet season and, possibly, the end of the next wet season. Permitting the Design, Build Process for the Surface Water Treatment Plant General The DB process envisioned by TBW would essentially break into phases the process by which TBW would obtain the necessary Public Drinking Water Treatment Construction Permit (Permit). The Permit initially would be based on "30 percent plans," which reflect about a 30 percent level of effort toward the overall design work or 30 percent completion of all of the design work (30 Percent Plans). Generally, 30 Percent Plans mark the end of the preliminary design phase. Plans reflecting 30, 60 and 90 percent levels of effort are customary in DBB processes, as these are the stages at which owners typically review design work. In 30 Percent Plans, some items are designed to 100 percent and other items are not designed at all. However, 30 Percent Plans provide reasonable assurance that the designed system is constructable. In essence, the Permit initially would be a conceptual permit for the entire SWTP coupled with a construction permit for those components for which the design is already complete on the 30 Percent Plans. Construction of each remaining component of the SWTP would await subsequent permit modifications authorizing construction of that component. As noted above, the May 18, 2000, cover letter anticipates another interim permit, or permit modification, covering specific components, and then the final permit, or permit modification, covering the entire SWTP. The DEP district office in Orlando has substantial experience with permitting DB water treatment projects. From 1996-98, the DEP Orlando office has permitted four such projects for the Orlando Utilities Commission and one such project for the City of Kissimmee. One of the Orlando Utilities Commission projects was to construct a completely new water treatment plant. Based on the experience of the DEP Orlando office, DB permitting, when based initially on 30 Percent Plans, shortens and simplifies the permitting process. DB permitting eliminates, or at least postpones, the presentation of elements, such as electrical and HVAC, that are irrelevant to the permitting process; the elimination of elements irrelevant to permitting from the initial designs helps the regulator find the elements that are relevant to the permitting process. Also, the experience of the DEP Orlando office is that the DB process results in no more permit modifications for change orders than are typical of a conventional DBB process. The DB-approval process used by the DEP Orlando office is modeled after the DEP-permitting process for wastewater treatment plants. DEP rules allow DB permitting of these plants, which are similar in construction to water treatment plants. In fact, DEP is preparing to adopt rules to allow DB permitting of water treatment plants. Because the DEP Orlando office did not issue variances from the rules that arguably preclude DB construction of water treatment plants, there is no precedent for the issuance of the variance sought in this case. However, the experience of the DEP Orlando office is that applicants do not present basic design changes after the initial submission, and DB permitting does not mean that regulatory objectives are sacrificed to the expediency sought by the applicant. The Present Case On April 11, 2000, Camp Dresser, on behalf of TBW, filed with the Health Department an Application for a Public Drinking Water Facility Construction Permit. The April 2000 drawings that accompanied the April 11, 2000, application are described above. The cover letter to the Health Department notes that, "upon conceptual approval of the project, individual components will be permitted through permit modifications based on submittals of complete drawings and specifications for each component." In this case, the availability of the Basis of Design meant that the 30 Percent Plans reflected more than a 30 percent level of effort or completion of the five-stage process of pretreatment, pH adjustment, ozone contactors, filtration, and storage in tanks. The engineer had already sized the facilities and defined all of the processes and elements of the SWTP. The April 2000 drawings, as supplemented by the Basis of Design, therefore presented a relatively detailed description of the scope, elements, and processes of the project. On May 18, 2000, Camp Dresser submitted to the Health Department more advanced drawings, which are dated May 18, 2000. The cover letter explains that the drawings are a complete set of Phase I drawings and specifications. The letter states that Camp Dresser intends to file complete drawings and specifications in three phases. Phase I, which is completed with the May 2000 drawings, consists of sitework, high rate flocculation and sedimentation, and ozone contact tanks. Phase II consists of biologically active granulated active carbon filters, clearwell, and gravity thickeners. Phase III consists of the remainder of the project. As of July 3, 2000, prior to the final hearing, the design for the SWTP had reached the 60 percent level of effort or completion. Although the SWTP described in the DBO Contract, Basis of Design, and May drawings is a relatively large, complex facility, it does not employ unproven technology. The standardization of design and regulatory review is facilitated by the use of the so-called Ten States' Standards, which are standards commonly used by the permitting authorities of numerous states, including Florida, to determine the capabilities of specified treatment processes in achieving specific water quality levels. Although the ACTIFLO technology is relatively new, it has been in use for at least five years. A pretreatment sedimentation barrier that reduces treatment time and thus tankage volume requirements, ACTIFLO is in use in a water treatment plant with a capacity of 60 MGD in Canada, which TBW's selection team members visited. ACTIFLO presently is being incorporated into a surface water treatment plant in Melbourne, Florida, where it must treat the nutrient-rich water of Lake Washington and the St. Johns River. The City of Tampa is adding ACTIFLO basins to its facilities. Also significant is the fact that ACTIFLO easily passed the pilot test on Lake Manatee. At present, 25 facilities using ACTIFLO are under design or construction in North America. As is consistent with the theory, the DBO process for designing, building, and operating the SWTP has demanded greater cooperation among the three entities that operate relatively independently in the DBB process. Pursuant to their obligations under the DBO Contract, Camp Dresser, Clark, and USFilter have coordinated, and likely will continue to coordinate, their efforts closely from design and construction, up to operation, to save time and money from the traditional DBB process, in which the design phase, construction phase, and operation phase are relatively independent of each other. The Variance In general, DEP has the authority to issue public drinking water treatment construction permits. The successful applicant obtains one permit--for construction and operation. There are no conceptual permits or separate operating permits. In Hillsborough County, as well as 10 other counties, DEP has delegated its responsibilities for issuing public drinking water treatment construction permits. In Hillsborough County, DEP has delegated this responsibility by an interagency agreement to the Health Department. Applying DEP rules to determine whether to issue a public drinking water construction permit, the Health Department defers to DEP for the issuance of variances from DEP rules. In typical permitting cases, the Health Department uses its own staff in processing the application and reaching a permitting decision. In a large case, such as this, the Health Department's lone professional engineer, who was hired in September 1999, can obtain considerable assistance from professional engineers within the Tampa Bay area and professional engineers employed by DEP. Perceiving a possible incompatibility between the DB process and the rules from which the variance is sought in this case, TBW initially filed a request for a variance with the Health Department. However, the Health Department declined to issue a variance to DEP rules and informed TBW that it had to file its request with DEP. Thus, on January 10, 2000, TBW filed a petition for a variance with DEP. On March 28, 2000, DEP issued a final order, pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, granting the requested variance from Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code (Variance). The Variance finds that the purpose of the underlying statutes would be met "because no component of the project would be permitted or constructed without review by the permitting authority of the complete plans and specifications for that portion of the project." The Variance finds that the DB approach will protect the public health, safety, and welfare in providing safe drinking water without exacerbating possible negative environmental impacts from the overuse of groundwater. The Variance relieves TBW of the necessity of complying with two subsections of the rule governing the contents of applications for a public drinking water construction permit. Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit application form sets forth the minimum information which is to be supplied to the Department or the Approved County Health Department. Additional information may be required by the Department to clarify information submitted in the permit application or to demonstrate that the proposed level of treatment will effectively treat the contaminants present in the raw water. The information required by the application is as follows: * * * Prints of drawings of the work project which contain sufficient detail to clearly apprise the Department of the work to be undertaken. All prints shall be minimum of 18 x 24 inches and a maximum size of 36 x 42 inches. The scale of details contained shall be satisfactory for microfilm reproduction. (Reduced size photographic reproduction of drawings for submission may be authorized.) Complete specifications of the project necessary to supplement the prints submitted. The issuance of the Variance by DEP has met with approval, albeit cautious approval, by the Health Department. One Health Department witness was an Engineer III, who is 19-year employee of the Health Department and supervisor of four Environmental Specialists charged with reviewing construction plans for drinking water plants. He testified that he agreed with DEP's final order granting the Variance. The Engineer III and the other Health Department witness, its professional engineer, testified that the issuance of the initial permit would not influence the Health Department in deciding whether to issue permit modifications, except to ensure compatibility. Allowing TBW not to comply with Rule 62-555.520(4)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code, the Variance provides that the initial permit shall not authorize the construction of any component of the SWTP; each component may be constructed only after the submission of complete plans and specifications for that component and the issuance of a permit modification based on those complete plans and specifications. The Variance also provides that the permitting authority shall publish a notice of intent to issue a permit modification "if the permitting authority believes that the modifications are of a controversial nature, or that there is heightened public awareness of the project." Save Our Bays and Canals, Inc. The Verified Amended Petition On May 1, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition challenging the Variance. On June 29, 2000, Petitioner filed an amended petition challenging the Variance, and the Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner leave to file an amended petition on July 3, 2000. At the start of the hearing, on July 7, 2000, Petitioner filed a verified amended petition, which was identical to the amended petition, except that, on July 6, 2000, Petitioner's president had verified the pleading "to the best of [his] knowledge, information and belief." The verified amended petition states that Petitioner has over 400 members. The verified amended petition alleges that a substantial number of Petitioner's members will consume the finished water produced by the SWTP and will use the surface waters supplying the SWTP for recreation. The verified amended petition states that the purpose of Petitioner is to save the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area and to ensure safe drinking water for its members and residents of the Tampa Bay area. The verified amended petition states that the Variance affects Petitioner because it would allow the issuance of the Permit and construction of initial phases of the SWTP prior to submittal, review, and approval of complete plans for the next and subsequent phases. The verified amended petition alleges that Petitioner incorporated to pool its resources to review applications, so as to ensure safe drinking water. The verified amended petition states that submittal and review of a complete set of drawings and specifications is necessary prior to construction of the SWTP to ensure the ability of the facility to comply with state drinking water standards. The verified amended petition states that review of all individual components of the SWTP is necessary to assure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and the compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Addressing specifically the 30 Percent Plans, the verified amended petition objects to the absence of a list of items to be included in the 30 Percent Plans. The verified amended petition alleges that this piecemeal approach to permitting will require Petitioner to request administrative hearings on each phase of permitting. The verified amended petition states that the Variance may have adverse environmental and safety impacts that cannot be evaluated fully without a submittal and review of the complete drawings and specifications. The verified amended petition states that the DBO approach is "self-created." The verified amended petition objects to the failure of TBW to obtain the Variance before issuing the RFP and instead using the DBO Contract as a basis for claiming hardship so as to qualify for the Variance. The verified amended petition states that the number of variances issued for similar 30 Percent Plans threatens to create a situation in which the variance subsumes the rule requiring complete drawings and specifications. The verified amended petition objects to this form of unwritten policy that has not been published as a rule. The verified amended petition states that the phased permitting of the SWTP may create permitting momentum that discourages a rigorous application of the rules at a later stage. The verified amended petition states that the request for a variance is improper because it is for a variance from statutes, not rules. The verified amended petition states that Section 403.861(10), Florida Statutes, requires DEP or Health Department approval of "complete plans and specifications prior to the installation, operation, alteration, or extension of any public water system." The verified amended petition states that "installation" means construction. The verified amended petition states that Section 403.861(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits the issuance of a public drinking water treatment construction permit "until the water system has been determined to have the required capabilities . . .." The verified amended petition states that the assurances of USFilter are insufficient to satisfy this requirement. The verified amended petition states that Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the variance procedure used in this case, does not authorize variances for compliance with federal law. The verified amended petition states that TBW must obtain a federal variance in order to obtain the Variance. The verified amended petition states that the 30 Percent Plans omit information required for permitting, such as the listing of a certified operator, monitoring and recordkeeping programs, and various financial elements, such as the posting of a bond and creation of reserves to demonstrate financial soundness. The verified amended petition states that TBW's substantial hardship is based on contract deadlines that are entirely self-created and, thus, insufficient to warrant a variance. The verified amended petition notes that the environmental damage cited as a basis for granting the Variance "was caused by years of overpumping by . . . TBW . . .." Also, the verified amended petition states that member governments of TBW continue to approve new development, which increases the demand for drinking water, because TBW and its member governments have failed to exploit fully the potential for conservation and reclaimed water. Similarly, the verified amended petition states that SWFWMD helped create the hardship by renewing the permits for additional withdrawals from the 11 Wellfields. The verified amended petition states that the DBO process will not necessarily save time and money and is not a recognized exception to the general requirement that an applicant must submit complete drawings and specifications prior to permitting. The verified amended petition states that 30 Percent Plans do not provide sufficient detail to know what the contractor is promising to build, and it would be faster to correct any mistakes prior to the start of construction, rather than after the start of construction. Standing Petitioner was an unincorporated association from its formation in early October 1999 through February 3, 2000, when it was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation. Originally named Save Our Bays and Canals Association, the unincorporated association was formed by members of the Apollo Beach Civic Association who were concerned about the environmental impact upon their bays and canals of intensive utility and industrial land uses in close proximity to their homes. Apollo Beach is an unincorporated area along the southeast shore of Tampa Bay, just south of the mouth of the Alafia River. The land uses with which the unincorporated association has been concerned in its brief existence include a sulfur plant, the TECO Big Bend plant, a proposed National Gypsum plant, a proposed concrete plant, the proposed Desal Plant, and, now the proposed SWTP. The Apollo Beach area is very close to the proposed site of the Desal Plant, but is about 17 miles south southeast from the proposed site of the SWTP. Petitioner and its members are primarily concerned with the Desal Plant, not the SWTP. However, Petitioner and its members express concern with the SWTP. The concerns are that DB permitting of the SWTP will jeopardize the production of safe drinking water and will result in greater costs to TBW customers, who will eventually bear the financial burden of costly reworking of a hastily designed and constructed project. Standing analysis is simplified by the elimination of the issue of whether the verification of the amended petition confers standing. The claims of Petitioner in this case do not rise to the level of an attempt to prevent an activity, conduct, or product to be permitted from impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the State. First, finished drinking water is not a natural resource of the State. Although a resource, finished drinking water is not natural. Although of lower water quality, raw water is a natural resource. The potable water leaving the SWTP is a manufactured resource. Second, even if finished drinking water were a natural resource, the issuance of the Variance does not have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring a natural resource. The Variance excuses compliance with two rules requiring complete drawings and specifications. Even assuming that the SWTP would impair, pollute, or otherwise injure natural resources, the Variance would not have such an effect because the act of granting the Variance is distinct from the act of granting the Permit itself. Thus, facts regarding the circumstances under which Petitioner's president verified the amended petition are irrelevant for the purpose of determining standing. Petitioner's standing is a function of the characteristics of the corporation and its members. At the corporate level, the articles of incorporation state that the "specific and primary purposes for which this corporation is formed are to operate for the public education and advancement of the water quality of Tampa Bay, its tributaries, its estuaries and its canals and for other charitable purposes, by the distribution of its funds for such purposes." There is some indication in the record of an attempt, after filing the petition commencing this proceeding, to amend the articles of incorporation to state, among Petitioner's purposes, the protection of drinking water. The record does not contain the written articles of incorporation, as amended, or amended articles of incorporation after February 3, 2000. However, for the purpose of this recommended order, the Administrative Law Judge shall assume that such an amendment was made at some point after the filing of the petition and before the final hearing. At the membership level, the water to be produced by the SWTP will be distributed primarily to customers in Pasco and Pinellas counties, St. Petersburg, and the Northwest Service Area of Hillsborough County, not to Apollo Beach, which is in southern Hillsborough County. Nearly all of Petitioner's members reside in Apollo Beach or other nearby communities, which also will not be served by the SWTP. Although an insubstantial number of Petitioner's members will consume finished water from the SWTP in their homes, a substantial number will consume finished water from the SWTP at their places of work or schools and where they shop or dine out. Drinking water is ubiquitous, and the mixture of functional land uses in Apollo Beach is not, so it is highly probable that members of Petitioner will travel the three-county area in connection with their employment, education, and recreation. Close analysis of the characteristics of Petitioner and its members reveals no basis for finding standing to challenge the Variance. Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner or any of its members have devoted themselves to the arcane task of resisting a perceived trend of state and local agencies to issue series of permits in response to DB proposals--or, more colorfully, to engage in "piecemeal permitting." About the only interest that Petitioner can legitimately claim in DB permitting is that multiple points of entry, at each permit and permit modification, will result in additional expense. If Petitioner has standing to contest even the permitting of the SWTP, Petitioner must petition each time for an administrative hearing, conduct discovery, and participate in the final hearing. However, this seems, at most, like a tenuous interest, which suffers also from the speculation that later stages of the DB permitting process will continue to present new issues not raised in the challenge of the Permit initially approved. Turning to the members themselves, their consumption of drinking water produced by the SWTP is no basis for standing either because the attenuated relationship between the Variance, which excuses compliance with two rules concerning the contents of applications, and the safety of drinking water or the additional costs that could arise from hasty designing, constructing, or permitting. Although it is conceivable that a record could have been made that the DB permitting proposed in this case would likely result in incomplete, incompetent permitting review, so as to jeopardize the public health if the permit were to issue, the record in this case does not support such a contention. To the contrary, the record establishes that the DB permitting is at least as likely as DBB permitting to provide the regulatory oversight necessary to assure the design and construction of a successful public drinking water treatment plant Lacking a substantial nexus in the record between the DB permitting authorized by the Variance and the quality of the drinking water that, if the Health Department issues the Permit, would likely be produced by the SWTP and likelihood of success of the overall construction project, the members of Petitioner likewise lack standing to challenge the Variance. Ultimate Findings of Fact Petitioner and its members lack standing to challenge the Variance. TBW faces a substantial hardship if not given the Variance. The legal and financial consequences of a failure to meet the phased-in withdrawal reductions are real and substantial. The environmental damage caused by overpumping the 11 Wellfields underscores the urgency of developing alternative sources of raw water for production into finished drinking water. The rule from which TBW seeks the Variance is derived from the statute discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The underlying purpose of this statute is the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The Variance serves the underlying purposes in two respects. First, the 30 Percent Plans contain sufficient detail to allow permitting to proceed without jeopardizing the objective of the rules to ensure that the USFilter team designs and constructs a water treatment plant that is in full compliance with all federal and state law. Second, the Variance provides that the USFilter team shall construct no component of the SWTP until it has been permitted, either initially or by a permit modification. Petitioner's Liability for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Petitioner has a Technical Committee on which Petitioner relies for examination of technical aspects of matters that are of general concern to Petitioner. This committee obtained a copy of the Variance and, after examination and discussion, developed a position in opposition to DEP's stated intent to grant the Variance. The Chair of Petitioner's Technical Committee, who has a bachelor of science degree in chemistry and is an industrial hygienist, drafted a letter reflecting the opinion of the committee in opposition to the Variance. Petitioner's attorney then converted this letter into the petition that commenced this proceeding. At all times, the Board of Directors of Petitioner approved the actions of the Technical Committee and Petitioner's attorney, including the filing of the petition. When Petitioner's president verified the amended petition, he reasonably relied on the advice of counsel concerning the substance of the assertions, and the advice of counsel was based on the work of the Technical Committee. Petitioner's president also reasonably relied on the work of the Technical Committee when he verified the amended petition. Although DB permitting has been available for the design and construction of wastewater treatment plants for an undetermined period of time, DB permitting for the design and construction of public drinking water plants is a new concept. The concept is so new that the DEP Orlando office mistakenly issued at least 2 DB permits for public drinking water plants without requiring the applicant to obtain a variance from the two rules that prevent DB permitting for such facilities. The concept is so new that the key Health Department employees have expressed concern over personnel demands from this new means of permitting, although they have also expressed at least lukewarm support for the Variance. The record portrays the employees of the Health Department as hard-working and competent, but over-burdened. The DB permitting obviously places significant responsibilities upon the Health Department, especially as it familiarizes itself with DP permitting. Although the availability of professional support from other sources, including DEP, ultimately resolves this issue, the situation of the Health Department also is relevant in assessing Petitioner's liability for attorneys' fees and costs. Two or three aspects of the drawings were deficient, according to Petitioner's professional engineer, whose testimony has been admitted despite the unreasonably restricted opportunity presented for cross-examination by his contractually driven refusal to identify past clients or jobs. Although none of these items seems likely to jeopardize a successful construction project, these were design points on which well-informed professionals could reasonably differ. Although the issue of "improper purpose" presents a closer question than the substantive issues discussed above, there is inadequate subjective or objective evidence in the record supporting TBW's claim for attorneys' fees and costs on this ground. Ultimately, the novelty of DB permitting of drinking water treatment plants precludes a finding of improper purpose. All available facts drive this determination, and, at this point in time, the relative uniqueness of DB permitting of drinking water treatment plants to DEP, the Health Department, and Petitioner and its members provides the necessary margin to preclude a finding of improper purpose.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Variance and denying the request of Tampa Bay Water for attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ralf G. Brookes, Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761 J. Frazier Carraway Thomas A. Lash Salem, Saxon & Nielson, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3200 Tampa, Florida 33601 Cynthia K. Christen Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky General Counsel Jack R. Pepper, Jr. Associate General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-555.360 of the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”), pertaining to cross-connection control for public water systems, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a natural person residing at 1805 Burlington Circle, Sun City Center, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department is the state agency with powers and duties to protect public drinking water as set forth in the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, section 403.850, et seq., Florida Statutes (2013). Background The term “cross-connection” is defined in rule 62-550.200(26) as: any physical arrangement whereby a public water supply is connected, directly or indirectly, with any other water supply system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage reservoir, plumbing fixture, or other device which contains or may contain contaminated water, sewage or other waste, or liquid of unknown or unsafe quality which may be capable of imparting contamination to the public water supply as the result of backflow. Cross-connections are prohibited unless appropriate backflow protection is provided to prevent backflow through the cross-connection into the public water system. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-550.360(1). There are three types of backflow prevention devices germane to this proceeding: Reduced Pressure Principle Assembly ("RP"), Double Check Valve Assembly ("DC"), and Dual Check Device ("DuC”). Typically, but not in every case, the water customer is responsible for the costs of installation, inspection, and maintenance of a backflow prevention device. It is undisputed that the RP is the most expensive to purchase, install, and maintain; followed by the DC; and then the DuC.2/ The RP and DC are installed above-ground, usually near a street. Test ports on these assemblies allow them to be tested to determine whether they are still functioning to prevent backflow. The DuC is usually installed underground and has no test ports. The Department asserts that this difference makes the DuC less reliable than the RP and DC. The rule states, and Petitioner did not refute, that the RP and DC offer greater backflow protection than the DuC. Petitioner has an auxiliary water system at his residence, which he uses to pump untreated water from a nearby lake to irrigate his lawn. There is no cross-connection between the plumbing system in Petitioner’s residence and his auxiliary water system. Petitioner does not have a backflow prevention device installed at his property. Hillsborough County has an ordinance that requires the installation of an RP device for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems, but the County currently has a moratorium on the enforcement of its ordinance. Petitioner is on a local committee established to investigate and advise the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners regarding cross-connection control. He believes the County is likely to modify its ordinance and allow the DuC for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems. The Department Rule The Department stated its purposes for the rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: These rules are being amended to significantly reduce the overall regulatory burden of cross-connection control requirements on community water systems (CWSs) and their residential customers by: allowing a dual check device to be used as backflow protection at or for residential service connections from CWSs to premises where there is any type of auxiliary or reclaimed water system; and (2) allowing biennial instead of annual testing of backflow preventer assemblies required at or for residential service connections from CWSs. A community water system (“CWS”) is a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. See § 403.852(3), Fla. Stat. The Department requires each CWS to have a cross- connection control program, and Table 62-555.360-2 in the rule establishes the “Minimum Backflow Protection” that must be provided at or for the service connection from the CWS to various types of water customers. The minimum backflow protection specified in the table for a residential service connection with an auxiliary water system is a DuC. All references hereafter to “residential service connection” shall mean one with an auxiliary water system. There is a footnote for the DuC at the bottom of the table, which explains: A DuC may be provided only if there is no known cross-connection between the plumbing system and the auxiliary or reclaimed water system on the customer's premises. Upon discovery of any cross•connection between the plumbing system and any reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated. Upon discovery of any cross- connection between the plumbing system and any auxiliary water system other than a reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated or shall ensure that the backflow protection provided at or for the service connection is equal to that required at or for a non•residential service connection. The SERC As part of the rulemaking process for the proposed amendments to rule 62-555.360, the Department prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost ("SERC"). Section 120.541, Florida Statutes (2013), governs the preparation of SERCs and provides that a substantially affected person may submit a “good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative that substantially accomplishes the objectives of the law being implemented.” See § 120.541(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The parties dispute whether Petitioner challenged the SERC. In his amended petition, Petitioner states no objection to any statement in the SERC. Petitioner did not challenge the SERC. The parties dispute whether Petitioner submitted a lower cost regulatory alternative. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stated: Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. Within 21 days of the notice, the Department received Petitioner's written comments. In his comments, Petitioner cites section 120.52(8)(f), which provides that a rule is invalid if it imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by adopting a less costly alternative. Petitioner recommends that the rule be changed to specify that the less costly DuC is the only acceptable backflow prevention device for residential service connections and “A CWS shall not impose a requirement for a more expensive type of backflow prevention valve.” The Department contends that Petitioner’s comments did not constitute a good faith lower cost regulatory alternative, citing pages 87-98 of the Transcript. Those pages contain some argument on the issue, but do not prove Petitioner did not submit a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s timely written comments included a citation to the relevant statute and a plainly-worded proposal. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner’s comments were sufficient to constitute a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s Objections Petitioner objects to rule 62-555.360 because (1) it specifies use of the RP and DC, which he contends are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety; (2) it specifies the DuC for residential service connections as the “minimum” protection, which he contends allows a CWS to require the more expensive RP or DC; (3) it requires testing of backflow devices “at least biennially” (once every two years), which he believes is too frequent; (4) it makes biennial testing a “minimum” testing interval, which he contends allows a CWS to require more frequent inspection; and (5) it does not require the backflow prevention device to be attached to the CWS’s water meter where Petitioner believes it should always be located. Unreasonable Danger Petitioner contends that the RP and DC are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety because a person could intentionally pump contaminants through a test port on one of these assemblies into a public water supply. The Department does not dispute that a person could introduce contaminants into a public water supply in this way. The flaw in Petitioner’s reasoning is his failure to see the danger in proper perspective. Department personnel and other persons with expertise in public water systems throughout the United States are well aware that there are many access points in potable water collection, treatment, and distribution systems and many methods to introduce contaminants into these systems. There are many access points other than RPs and DCs. For example, there are methods available that would allow contaminants to be pumped into a public water system from any building connected to the system that has no backflow prevention device installed. RPs and DCs are primarily designed to prevent accidental introduction of contaminants into a public water system. However, they also prevent a person from intentionally pumping contaminants into the public water system from inside a house or building, hidden from view. The danger described by Petitioner assumes that the criminal who is intentionally pumping contaminants through the RP or DC will do it while standing next to the device, in the open, near a street. It is a well-known fact officially recognized by the Administrative Law Judge that criminals prefer to conduct their criminal activities hidden from sight rather than in plain view. Therefore, a criminal planning to contaminate a public water supply is more likely to choose a means other than introducing contaminants through an RP or DC. RPs and DCs are already in wide use. There is no reported incident of intentional contamination of a public water supply by pumping contaminants through one of these devices. When these factors are taken into account, the rule’s specifications for the continued use of RPs and DCs do not create an unreasonable danger to the public health and safety. Minimum Backflow Protection Petitioner contends that Table 62-555.360-2 is invalid because it violates the Department’s duty under section 120.541 to adopt “less costly alternatives.” Petitioner asserts that by specifying the DuC as the “minimum” backflow protection required for residential service connections the rule allows a local government to require the more costly RP or DC. The Department cannot dispute that the DuC substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives. The RP and DC provide greater backflow protection than the DuC, but the Department specified the DuC for residential service connections, indicating that the lower protection provided by the DuC did not make it fall short of the statutory objectives. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the rule imposes the least costly regulatory alternative for residential service connections because it only requires the DuC. Biennial Testing Schedule Petitioner contends that section III.D. of Table 62-555.360-1 also violates the Department’s duty to adopt less costly alternatives because the rule requires “backflow assemblies” to be tested biennially, which Petitioner believes is too frequent. The term “backflow preventer assemblies” refers only to the RP and DC. See footnote 1 of Table 62-555.360-1. Section III.E. of Table 62-555.360-1 indicates that the DuC must be refurbished or replaced “at least once every 5 to 10 years.” Petitioner did not object to this requirement. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that biennial testing is reasonable. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to object to the testing frequency specified for the RP and DC, because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Location of the Backflow Preventer Petitioner objects to section III.B. of Table 62-555.360-1, which requires backflow prevention devices to be “installed as close as practical to the CWS’s meter or customer’s property line.” Petitioner contends that this is an unconstitutional interference with private property and is unreasonably dangerous because it provides a means for intentional contamination. Petitioner’s private property rights claim is based on his allegation that if he were required by Hillsborough County to have an RP and DC, the device could be placed on his private property. Petitioner did not allege or present evidence to show that placing an RP or DC on his property would deprive him of all reasonable uses of his property so as to cause a taking of his private property for a public purpose without full compensation. See Art. X, § 6(a), Fla. Const. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to raise this issue because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Petitioner contends the rule should require that backflow prevention devices always be attached to the water meter because that reduces the opportunity for intentional contamination. Petitioner is not an expert in public water systems, generally, or the installation of backflow prevention devices, in particular. He is not competent to state the relevant factors and constraints associated with installation of the devices. He is not competent to express an opinion whether it is always possible or always appropriate to attach the devices directly to the water meter. Furthermore, Petitioner’s claim of unreasonable danger was refuted above.
The Issue Whether application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit should be granted, pursuant to Chapter 383, Florida Statutes. Prior to the hearing, 16 individuals in the Wabasso, Florida, community petitioned to intervene as parties in this proceeding. By Order, dated August 26, 1976, intervention was granted. Thereafter, counsel for the Wabasso Citizens Association, a private, unincorporated association that included the 16 prior intervenors, requested that intervention include all members of the association. There being no objection to the foregoing request, intervention was granted accordingly. The public hearing in this matter included 22 exhibits and the testimony of 21 witnesses, nine of whom were members of the public. Lists of the exhibits and public witnesses are attached hereto. On January 8, 1975, the Town of Indian River Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Town"), and Lost Tree Village Corporation, Indian Rivers Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Lost Tree"), filed application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (hereinafter "District"). The application requested a permit for the withdrawal of 393 acre feet per year of groundwater from two wells located on a parcel of land owned by Lost Tree at Wabasso, Florida. The requested use was for irrigation of two golf courses located on land owned by Lost Tree known as John's Island, a residential community located within the Town, and as an emergency public water supply for the Town. It was proposed that the water be transported by pipeline owned by Lost Tree from Wabasso to John's Island, a distance of several miles. Although the matter was set for public hearing to be held on February 4, 1975, an unfavorable staff report of the District, dated January 30, 1975, resulted in an indefinite postponement of the hearing. A hydrogeological report was prepared for Lost Tree by a consulting firm on February 12, 1976, and submitted by the applicant to the District. A subsequent staff report of the District was prepared on July 28, 1976. Thereafter, the matter was noticed for hearing to be held August 31, 1976. Pursuant to the request of intervenors, a continuance was granted until September 29, 1976. (Exhibits 5,6,7,8,19)
Findings Of Fact The Town is a municipality that was incorporated in 1953. It is located east of the Indian River on an island and extends from the north boundary of Vero Beach for over 4 miles along the Atlantic ocean. In 1969, Lost Tree commenced developing a 3,000-acre tract of land located within the Town as a residential community. Prior to the initiation of this project, there had been very little development in the Town. In order to attract residents to John's Island, two 36-hole golf courses were constructed on the property, known as the North and South Courses, covering approximately 180 acres. At the present time, John's Island comprises over 600 residences, consisting of single and multiple family units, ranging in price from $65,000 to $500,000. The Town has a population of about 1,200, with 65 percent residing at John's Island. The present assessed value of property located in the Town is about $160,000,000 of which almost $66,000,000 is attributable to property in John's Island. The private golf club at John's Island has approximately 500 members, including about 150 from Vero Beach. The golf courses are considered to be the "heart" and "life-blood" of the community (Testimony of Ecclestone, Miller; Exhibits 5,11,12). The water supply of the Town comes from the water system of the City of Vero Beach, pursuant to contract, via a 16" water main which crosses the Indian River and ends at the northern boundary of Vero Beach. There, it is tied into a 12" water main of the Town. The Town has a one million gallon capacity underground storage tank and a 100,000 gallon overhead tank. The 16" main is the only waterline that crosses the Indian River and, in the event of a rupture, the Town would be limited to its stored supplies (Testimony of Miller, Little, Exhibits 5,17). The John's Island golf courses require irrigation of approximately 70 acres. In the past, irrigation water has been obtained from a system of shallow wells on the property, treated sewage effluent from the surrounding community, and stormwater, all of which is discharged into two ponds located on the courses. Additionally, treated potable water is obtained from the City of Vero Beach through two two-inch water meters that were installed in 1975. Prior to that time, an undisclosed amount of city water was obtained for irrigation and other purposes through city meters installed on fire hydrants in the area. The use of city water was required in order to supplement the resources available on the John's Island property. During the period May, 1975, through August, 1976, the amount of water obtained from the City of Vero Beach that was used for golf course irrigation totaled 54,057,000 gallons, an average of some 110,000 gallons per day. At the present time there is no water problem, insofar as irrigation is concerned, on the South Course which obtains irrigation water from sewage effluent and a number of shallow wells. However, test samplings over the years have shown a gradual increase in the amount of chlorides in the water and it is questionable whether such water will continue to be suitable for irrigation in the foreseeable future. Recent tests show the chloride content of the water at 450 ppm. The type of Bermuda grass on the golf courses can grow satisfactorily with water containing not more than 1,000 ppm. City water is used only on the North Course. The water obtained from the shallow wells in that area is highly saline in content. A recent water test showed a chloride content of 3,800 ppm. Additionally, immediately before an eight inch rainfall which lowered the chloride content to the foregoing figure, the greens on the North Course tested at 6,300 ppm in chloride content (Testimony of Luke, Little, Exhibits 6,7). During periods of drought, the City of Vero Beach has requested John's Island and other water users to either curtail or stop the use of city water for non-domestic purposes. Such requests have been received approximately six times during the past year. In April, 1976, the city water used for golf course irrigation at John's Island was shut off for a period of eight days as a result of a request from officials of Vero Beach. If insufficient irrigation water is not received for a period of 10 days to two weeks, it is extremely probable that a golf course would have to be replanted at an approximate cost of $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 and would require a period of six months for suitable growth. Both the Town and John's Island always cooperated fully with the requests of Vero Beach to curtail water use (Testimony of Luke, Miller, Little, Exhibit 17). At the time irrigation water sources were being explored at John's Island, a test well was drilled to a depth of 2020 feet into the Floridan aquifer underlying the property, but an inadequate quantity of water was developed. Lost Tree owns some 25 acres of land at Winter Beach, Florida, which is located west of John's Island across the Indian River. Although test wells there produced satisfactory water, it was not feasible to use this source due to prohibitions against excavation for such purposes in the Indian River. Due primarily to economic considerations of the high cost of using treated city water for golf course irrigation, and the inconvenience and possible hazards of water interruptions from that source, Lost Tree decided to supplement its resources from water withdrawn from wells to be located on a 4.869 acre tract of land it purchased in Wabasso. Although a deep well was considered at that site, state agencies advised that the Floridan aquifer was overloaded in that area to a degree of 200 percent. Accordingly, in 1973, two ninety-foot deep wells were constructed on the site approximately 500 feet apart into the underlying shallow aquifer. Pump tests showed that the chloride content was within satisfactory limits. Thereafter, Lost Tree in its own name and that of The Town, obtained necessary rights-of-way and permits for the placement of a system of pipes for transportation of water from the Wabasso wells to John's Island. These consisted of a 16" water line from the Wabasso site east over a newly constructed bridge and several existing bridges to Highway A1A where the size of the line south to John's Island was decreased to twelve inches. An agreement was entered into between Lost Tree and the Town on December 19, 1974 whereby the former agreed to supply emergency needs of the Town from water obtained from the Wabasso wells. About that same time, the pipe system was completed and the present application filed with the District (Testimony of Lloyd, Ecclestone, Exhibits 2,6,9). The area immediately surrounding Lost Tree's land in Wabasso consists primarily of residences, groves, and trailer parks. The residents of the unincorporated Wabasso area depend solely upon the shallow aquifer for their domestic water needs since there are no utility services in the area. Grove irrigation normally is accomplished by deep wells to the Floridan aquifer. After the application herein was filed in January, 1975, numerous letters of objection to the proposed withdrawal were filed with the District by residents of the Wabasso community and from local organizations. These objections, for the most part, expressed apprehension that the applicants would be withdrawing far more water from the well field than their fair share based on the size of Lost Tree's land in Wabasso. The objectors also claimed that the requested withdrawal would have a serious detrimental effect on existing users. They further protested the concept of extracting potable water from one area and transporting it to another area for irrigation use on recreational facilities. The initial Staff Report of the District on January 30, 1975, took such objections into consideration and recommended denial of the application based on the unsuitability of the well field site. It found that withdrawal of the requested water for golf course irrigation was not a reasonable and beneficial use because it greatly exceeded the water budget for the site, harmed existing legitimate users in the area by creating drawdowns of several feet which would increase the possibility of potable water supply wells running dry, harming potential future legitimate users by lowering the water table and exporting the water that they might have utilized, and because it threatened to harm such users and the resource itself by "upconing" saline water from the bottom of the aquifer into the fresh water producing zone of the aquifer. Although the report stated that there would be no objection to permitting an allocation on the order of 7.5 acre feet per year, which was the equivalent to the water crop, it was not recommended because such an allocation would do little to meet the applicant's needs for irrigation water (Exhibit 6, Composite Exhibit 20). Recognizing the need for further studies to support its application, Lost Tree hired a firm of consulting groundwater geologists and hydrologists to conduct an investigation of potential sources of irrigation water for both the John's Island and the Wabasso sites. The study confirmed prior conclusions that it was not practicable or feasible to develop the necessary irrigation water from sources available at John's Island. As to the Wabasso area, the report found that the shallow aquifer was not being fully utilized and that extraction of the proposed quantity of water would not exceed the capacity of the aquifer to provide it. It also determined that the presence of a continuous layer of impermeable clay within the Hawthorn formation effectively separates the Floridan from the shallow aquifer. No interference in the water levels of the Floridan aquifer should occur nor is it likely there would be salt water intrusion into the shallow aquifer. However, based on the formulation of a "mathematical model," it was predicted that the proposed withdrawal could adversely affect existing shallow wells within a few hundred feet of the applicant's well field by "drawdown" which could lessen the pumping ability of centrifugal pumps. Nearby existing wells, such as those located in a trailer park immediately west of Lost Tree's well field, could lose suction in pumping and thereby owners might experience delay in extracting water from the wells (Testimony of Amy, Exhibits 4, 8). Although one Wabasso resident who owns property near Lost Tree's wells has experienced a decrease in pressure in her well and poor quality water, and another nearby resident's well went dry, there is no clear evidence that Lost Tree's drilling of its two wells and consequent testing thereof caused these problems. Testimony of other Wabasso residents expressed their apprehension as to possible salt water intrusion and unavailability of water in the shallow aquifer if the requested withdrawal is approved. Other residents and public witnesses challenged the fairness of permitting one land owner to deplete local water supplies by withdrawals for transport to another area for recreational purposes (Testimony of Chesser, McPherson R., Pangburn R., Jackson, Mrs. S.B., Kale, Stout, Wintermute, Pangburn, K., Bidlingmayer, Willey, Gertzen). The District Staff Report, dated July 28, 1976, as supplemented by an addendum, dated August 30, 1976, reviewed the hydrogeological study submitted by the applicants and concluded that withdrawal of a specified amount of water from Lost Tree's Wabasso wells would represent a reasonable and beneficial use of the resource that did not appear to harm either the resource or existing users. It calculated the "crop requirement" for the golf courses on the basis of 135 acres. Testimony at the hearing established that the area required to be irrigated was only 70 acres. Consequently, the report's recommendation as to the annual water allocation for golf course irrigation was scaled down accordingly. Recommendations as to daily withdrawals were based upon the maximum billing by the City of Vero Beach for a 22-day period in January and February, 1975, plus a 20 percent allowance to provide a reasonable degree of operational flexibility. The conclusion of the staff that the withdrawal would not harm existing users is questionable in the light of the applicant's own hydrogeological study and testimony of its experts (Testimony of Winter, Exhibits 6,7,22). The Staff Report recommended that certain conditions be imposed upon any issuance of the requested permit. The following findings are made as to the reasonableness of such proposed conditions: Annual allocation of no more than 51.044 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. This permit shall expire 5 years after permit issuance. FINDING: Reasonable. The use may require reevaluation based upon developing needs of the area of withdrawal for higher priority uses of the resource. The total maximum monthly withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 6.931 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. The total daily withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 378,000 gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. Daily pumpage on a monthly basis shall be reported to the District during the following month. This data must be obtained through the use of an in line totalizing meter or meters at the well field. FINDING: Reasonable. Prior to the initiation of any pumping from the wells in Wabasso the permittee must survey all existing wells (with the owners' permission) located within 800 feet of each of these wells. Should it be determined that the permittee's pumping as recommended may adversely affect an existing well the permittee is to be held responsible for making timely corrective measures as deemed necessary at no expense to the owner, in order to preserve the water supply capability of that facility. A complete and detailed report of the survey and corrective measures taken by the permittee shall be submitted to the District. The District will then issue a notice authorizing the permittee to begin pumping as required. FINDING: Unreasonable. Although it is conceded by the applicants that adverse effects upon nearby wells may well occur, attempts to make determinations as to actual effects prior to full operation of Lost Tree's wells would only be speculative in nature. It is noteworthy in this regard that upon issuance of a temporary authorization to Lost Tree to withdraw water commencing in August, 1976, a similar precondition was imposed with a report of a survey and corrective measures taken to be submitted to the District prior to authorization to begin pumping. A cursory survey was performed by a representative of Lost Tree that consisted merely of attempting to locate surrounding wells by off-premises observation. No attempt was made to contact well owners or to obtain information as to the types of pumps on the wells. Such a survey is patently inadequate for the purposes desired by the District and it is considered impracticable and onerous to saddle the applicant with the burden of such a condition. Although withdrawals of water under the temporary permit commenced on September 18, 1976, and continued thereafter, there is no evidence that any complaints were registered by adjacent well owners as a result of the withdrawals (Testimony of Pearson, Exhibits 13, 14). For a period of 18 months after the first full week of operation in which no substantive complaints of adverse impact are received by the District, the permittee must assume full responsibility for taking the appropriate corrective to rectify any adverse impact their withdrawals create on any existing users within the area influenced by their withdrawal. Upon receiving a substantive complaint of adverse impact upon an existing user, the Executive Director of the District will issue a notice prohibiting any further withdrawals from the wells in Wabasso until corrective measures are taken by the permittee at no expense to the existing user, or until the permittee proves that their withdrawal is not the cause of the problem. The Executive Director of the District will issue a notice to resume withdrawals when the District has been satisfied that the situation is remedied. FINDING: Reasonable in part. The condition should be modified to extend the period of the permittee's responsibility for corrective action as to adverse impact on existing users to the entire life of the permit rather than for a period of only 18 months. Further, the District's prohibition of withdrawals after the receipt of a complaint is arbitrary and inconsistent with the method of administrative enforcement procedures as specified in Section 373.119(1), Florida Statutes. To help define the actual impact of the permittee's withdrawal a total of at least seven observation wells shall be installed. The observation wells shall be located between the permittee's wells and Indian River, two shall be located to the west and the remaining two shall be located either to the north or south of the permittee's wells. The locations and depths of these wells shall halve District concurrence. A continuous water level recording device shall be installed on one off these wells. FINDING: Reasonable. Although the installation and monitoring of a number of observation wells imposes a financial burden on the applicants, it is considered a proper requirement to assist in determining the impact of any withdrawal. The time for installation and specifications thereof should be set forth in any permit issued. Hydrographs from the recording device on one of the observation wells and from weekly hand measured water levels on the remaining observation wells shall be submitted to the District on a monthly basis. This data shall be submitted in the month following the period of record. All water level data shall be measured and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot and referenced to mean sea level. FINDING: Reasonable. By acceptance of this permit the permittee acknowledges that this permit confers no prior right to the permittee for the use of water in the amount allocated and for the purpose stated. FINDING: Unreasonable. The condition is ambiguous and involves legal aspects that are not proper for determination at this time. Any future application involving the use of the withdrawal facilities permitted herein, shall be considered as an application for a new use and it shall be reviewed accordingly. FINDING: Unreasonable. See comment in I above. All existing Floridan wells located on the applicant's properties must be abandoned in accordance with the current applicable standards of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Abandonment procedures must be carried out within 6 months of the date of issuance of this permit. FINDING: Unreasonable. The abandonment of existing Floridan wells involves subject matter not embraced within the application. An officer of the Lost Tree Village Corporation shall submit with each report required by the District a sworn and acknowledged affidavit that the report reflects the actual measurements or readings taken. FINDING: Reasonable. The Permittee shall obtain a water sample from a pumping well at the Wabasso well field site once a month, within five days of the end of the month. This sample shall be analyzed for chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 calendar days after collection. Should the District determine that a significant change has occurred in the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the Wabasso well field, the District shall initiate a new review of the application. FINDING: Reasonable. Upon installation of the observation wells, a water sample shall be obtained from these wells and analyzed for the following parameters: Chloride Total Dissolved Solids Conductivity Sulfate Calcium Magnesium Sodium Bicarbonate This analysis shall be submitted to the District within 14 days after collection. During the last five days of the months of May and November of each year, during the duration of this permit, the permittee shall obtain one water sample from each of the installed observation wells. These samples shall be analyzed for Chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 days after collection. FINDING: Reasonable. If the permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District that the groundwater withdrawn by the south golf course well point system is no longer suitable for the irrigation of the golf course, the annual allocation shall be increased to 82.942 million gallons. FINDING: Unreasonable. Future needs should be the subject of modification of permit terms at an appropriate time, pursuant to section 373.239, F.S. An emergency authorization was issued to the applicants by the governing board of the District on August 30, 1976. This authorization contains certain special conditions including a requirement to conduct and submit a preauthorization survey and report concerning existing wells located within 800 feet of the applicant's wells. In addition, a condition of the authorization was that no withdrawals shall be made unless the City of Vero Beach had ordered the applicant to stop the use of water from its system for golf course irrigation. The evidence shows that neither of these conditions was met by the applicant, but yet withdrawals were made during the month of September, 1976 without District authorization (Testimony of Winter, Rearson, Exhibit 13). The applicant's disregard of these requirements indicates the need for a further special condition if a permit is granted, to ensure that adjacent land owners are protected in the event of adverse effects upon their water supply. To accomplish that, it is found that the following additional condition is reasonable and necessary: P. The Board shall require the applicant to furnish a bond in an appropriate amount, as authorized by Rule 16K-1.061, F.A.C. It is found that insufficient evidence has been presented to determine the merits of the request of the Town of Indian River Shores for an emergency water supply from the Wabasso wells.
Recommendation That a consumptive water use permit, with conditions as specified herein, be issued to applicant Lost Tree Village Corporation for the irrigation of its two golf courses at John's Island. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1030 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 William T. McCluan, Esquire 65 East Nasa Boulevard Post Office Box 459 Melbourne, Florida 32901 =================================================================
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (District, or SJRWMD) should issue consumptive use permit (CUP) 95581 to Seminole County (Seminole) authorizing the withdrawal and use of 2,007.5 million gallons a year (mgy) or 5.5 million gallons a day (mgd) of surface water from the St. Johns River for public supply and reclaimed water supply augmentation.
Findings Of Fact Parties Seminole County (Seminole) is north of Orlando, Florida, and contiguous with the St. Johns River. It is located entirely within the District, and the Central Florida Coordination Area (“CFCA”). Seminole owns and operates water, wastewater, and reclaimed water utilities. These include a wastewater treatment facility at Yankee Lake near the St. Johns River just downstream from Lake Monroe, where Seminole proposes to construct surface water withdrawal and related facilities. The District is the regulatory agency charged with issuing permits for the consumptive use of water within a sixteen county area located in East-Central Florida. The City of Jacksonville (Jacksonville) is a Florida municipality located about 140 miles downstream of the proposed Yankee Lake facility. Jacksonville’s standing is based on the filing of a verified pleading pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes.2 St. Johns County (St. Johns) is a Florida political subdivision located approximately 100 miles downstream of the proposed Yankee Lake facility. St. Johns County’s standing also is based on the filing of a verified pleading pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. It alleges Seminole’s proposed withdrawal of water will adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the St. Johns River by a substantial number of its members. At the end of its evidentiary presentation at the final hearing, Riverkeeper requested leave to amend its petition to also allege standing under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. Seminole's Water Utility Systems Seminole serves customers in its Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast Potable Water Service Areas, and holds separate groundwater CUPs for each service area. The existing CUPs authorize a total allocation of 21.7 mgd. Seminole has four main wastewater water service areas roughly contiguous with its water service areas. Seminole treats wastewater from the Southeast Service Area at the Iron Bridge Regional Water Reclamation Facility,3 and treats wastewater from the Northwest and Northeast Service Areas at its Yankee Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Greenwood Lakes WWTP. Seminole has two reclaimed water service areas, the Northwest-Northeast Service Area, which utilizes treated wastewater supplied by the Yankee Lake and Greenwood Lakes WWTPs, and the Southeast Service Area, which utilizes treated wastewater from the Iron Bridge WWTP. Seminole plans to expand reclaimed water use in the Northwest-Northeast Service Area by installing an $80 million, 5-phase residential reclaimed retrofit program. Seminole has developed an Integrated Water Supply Plan (Seminole's Plan) to address existing and future potable and reclaimed water needs in compliance with the CFCA rules, which limit groundwater withdrawals to the quantity required to meet each user’s 2013 demand and encourage development of AWS sources to meet excess demands.4 Seminole's Plan includes traditional and AWS sources and a conservation program that has been approved by the District. Seminole's traditional water source is groundwater, and Seminole has a pending application to consolidate its existing groundwater CUPs (Consolidated Groundwater CUP). With current allocations of 21.7 mgd expired or soon to expire, the Consolidated Groundwater CUP requests an allocation of 25.6 mgd to meet 2013 demands. The current plan is for surface water withdrawals from St. Johns River at Yankee Lake be Seminole's non-traditional water source. Yankee Lake Project CUP On February 12, 2008, the District issued its Technical Staff Report (“TSR”) for CUP 95581. The TSR recommended a 20-year CUP with a surface water allocation of 0.70 mgd starting in 2009, increasing to 5.5 mgd in 2025-2028. Between 2009 and 2013, the surface water allocation identified in the TSR would be used for reclaimed water augmentation. Starting in 2014, the TSR recommends an allocation of 5.35 mgd, which coincides with the completion of Seminole’s surface water treatment facility and the use of surface water as a potable water source. Condition 6 of the TSR limits the maximum daily withdrawal to 11.59 mgd. The intake structure for the Yankee Lake surface water facility will be located on a manmade canal connected to the St. Johns River, in or just outside the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve and in Seminole's Yankee Lake Black Bear Wilderness Area. The capacity of the intake structure is 10 mgd, and it has been sized for expansion to 50 mgd to meet potential future demands over the useful life of the facility. The intake structure is designed with an intake velocity much less than 0.5 feet per second, which is the industry standard. The intake structure includes a sheet pile wall, an 8-inch bar screen manatee barrier at the mouth of the canal, a second screen which removes aquatic debris and serves as a second barrier to aquatic life, and a 4-millimeter intake pump screen. Raw water pipelines from the intake structure will run through previously disturbed wetlands within the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve and the Seminole Black Bear Wilderness Area to new treatment facilities, all of which will be located on land owned by Seminole. The pipelines consist of two 42-inch lines with a total capacity of 50 mgd, which is intended to meet possible future demands during the 50-year useful life of the facilities. It is common to design utility infrastructure to accept larger quantities of water than immediately needed to accommodate possible future expansion. Seminole Water Demand and Need The reasonableness of Seminole's proposed CUP depends in large part on potable water and reclaimed water demand. Potable Water In 2005, Seminole provided water service to a residential population of 101,585. For the most recent five- year period, from 2003-2007, Seminole’s average residential per capita potable water use rate was 153.7 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The historic per capita use rates in Seminole’s four service areas are below 150 gpcd, with the exception of the Northwest Service Area. The served population in the Northwest Service Area increased from 12,655 in 2001 to 20,745 in 2005, and per capita usage declined from 285 gpcd in 2001 to 213.5 gpcd in 2005. The higher per capita rate in the Northwest Service area is attributable to larger residential lots and lawns and more irrigation than in the other service areas. Additionally, the residents are more affluent and are not as responsive to Seminole’s water conservation rate structure. Seminole is implementing an $80 million reclaimed water retrofit program in order to reduce per capita potable water use in the Northwest Service Area. In order to project future water demands for the life of the proposed CUP, Seminole’s consultant, Dr. Terrence McCue, used the population projections published by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (“BEBR”).5 He used the BEBR 2008 medium population projections, which were the most recent projections available at the time of hearing. Since BEBR data are published on a county-wide basis, Dr. McCue disaggregated the data to Seminole’s service areas by using traffic analysis zones and water utility billing data. This is a recognized methodology used to calculate service area population for the purpose of determining water demand. Using this methodology, Dr. McCue estimated Seminole’s service area population to be 110,860 in 2008 and projected that it would increase to 126,531 in 2013 and to 161,971 in 2027. The District asked its consultant, Richard Doty, to perform an independent water demand projection as a check on Dr. McCue’s work product. Mr. Doty also relied on BEBR projections, but disaggregated the county-wide population projections differently, using a sophisticated GIS model to calculate build-out densities. Mr. Doty estimated Seminole’s service area population to be 109,202 in 2007 and projected that it would increase to 126,075 in 2013 and to 155,368 in 2027. Although Mr. Doty’s population projections were somewhat lower than Dr. McCue's, they were close enough to essentially corroborate the validity of Dr. McCue's projections. Mr. Doty testified that, while he prefers his projection, Dr. McCue’s population projections are plausible. Jacksonville's expert witness, Nolton Johnson, who did not himself project service area population, could not say that Mr. Doty’s population projections are superior because Dr. McCue used actual water billing data that was more specific to Seminole’s service area. For these reasons, it is reasonable to base projected water demand on either Dr. McCue's or Mr. Doty's population projections. To project service area demand, projected population is multiplied by a use rate. Here, Mr. Doty used the simple method specified in A.H. Section 12.2.2. He basically averaged the historical gross per capita daily (gpcd) water use in each service area for the most recent five-year period (2003-2007). Using the average use rate for those years, he calculated a total potable water demand (for all sources and all kinds of uses) of 24.87 mgd for 2013, 30.67 mgd for 2027, and 30.76 mgd for 2028. In contrast, Dr. McCue averaged the historical per capita residential use rate for 2001 through 2005, instead of 2003 through 2007. Then, he made several adjustments not used by Mr. Doty and not included in A.H. Section 12.2.2. Some of these adjustments had the effect of increasing demand while others decreased demand. First, Dr. McCue's demand estimates included an 8% "unaccounted-for flow factor." There was evidence that this is an accepted industry standard and consistent with other utilities in Central Florida. However, it seems high for Seminole, which may actually over-account for flow. (Seminole is currently attempting to ascertain the accuracy of its flow meters.) Mr. Doty did not incorporate an "unaccounted-for flow factor" in his demand projections because any discrepancy, whether Seminole's flow meters are over-accounting or under- accounting for actual flow, should already be incorporated into the historical use rate Mr. Doty calculated. Second, Dr. McCue multiplied the historical average by a 6% "drought correction factor." Dr. McCue's rationale for the drought correction factor was that it accounted for the increased demand that would occur during drought years (although the historical average already accounted for use rate changes due to the fluctuations in rainfall that occurred during 2001- 2005). Dr. McCue also made adjustments to the historical use rate to reduce projected potable water demand as a result of Seminole's Water Conservation Plan, which meets all District requirements and CUP permitting criteria and has been approved by the District. Seminole's Water Conservation Plan includes Seminole’s ongoing residential irrigation audit program, which from 2007 through 2013 is projected to conserve 0.082 mgd per year, with a total savings of 0.622 mgd. Seminole has had a water conservation rate structure in place since 1985, which discourages high water use by increasing customer billing rates as usage increases. Seminole also has implemented a block billing structure for its reclaimed water customers to conserve that water. Seminole's Water Conservation Plan also includes an augmentation minimization plan, conservation gardens, and a public education program. The total cost of implementing Seminole’s conservation plan will exceed $125 million. The plan is focused on the Northwest Service Area, where per capita water use has declined 25% from 2001 to 2007. If Seminole's objectives are achieved, projected water use within the Northwest Service Area will decline an additional 25%, for a 50% reduction in potable water use within the Northwest Service Area from 2001-2028. Dr. McCue applied a 9% reduction in potable water demand due to implementation of the reclaimed water retrofit program and a 4% reduction to account for other planned conservation measures. Based on Dr. McCue’s projections, Seminole’s residential per capita use rate will fall below 150 gpcd in 2012, and will continue to decline to 134.5 gpcd in 2027 as a result of the proposed conservation, with corresponding reductions in potable water demand. Petitioners contend that Dr. McCue's conservation adjustments were "negotiated" between Seminole and the District, and are too low. The "negotiation" process itself does not negate the reasonableness of the resulting agreed conservation adjustments since it is impossible to predict the results of Seminole's Water Conservation Plan with certainty. The conservation adjustments used by Dr. McCue were reasonable. Riverkeeper expert witness, Dr. John Woolschlager, testified that Seminole could achieve greater reductions (15%) in water use through conservation. He based his opinion on reductions achieved by other utilities, including the City of Tampa and Miami-Dade County. Dr. Woolschlager relied on an EPA report on the City of Tampa, which indicated that Tampa experienced a 26% decline in per capita use from 1989 to 2001. However, he was not aware of how lot sizes, land use patterns, persons per household, or other demographic information for Tampa compare to Seminole, and he did not have enough data to say that Seminole could achieve similar savings from 2008 to 2028. Dr. Woolschlager also did not know whether Seminole had already implemented any of the conservation measures utilized by Tampa from 1989 to 2001. Dr. Woolschlager also relied on a study involving Miami-Dade County. However, he admitted that Miami-Dade County is not similar to Seminole demographically. Dr. Woolschlager also was not aware of Miami-Dade’s total water use during the study period, but was only aware that Miami-Dade had reduced its water consumption by 19.8 mgd. Without knowing Miami-Dade’s total use, it was impossible to calculate the percentage savings that was achieved by Miami-Dade in order to compare it to Seminole. Jacksonville expert witness, Nolton Johnson, opined that greater conservation savings could be achieved through the mandatory implementation of the Florida Water Star Program, a voluntary certification process for builders. While promoted by the District, the Florida Water Star Program is not part of the District’s conservation requirements. It is not appropriate to include a CUP requirement that Seminole make the program mandatory. It is not reasonable from an engineering perspective, or appropriate, to assume savings from 100% compliance with the Florida Water Star Program by new development in Seminole, as Mr. Johnson did for his opinion. In addition, Mr. Johnson based his assumptions regarding the amount of water savings achievable through mandatory implementation of the Florida Water Star Program on a District brochure. However, the brochure assumed an extremely high starting per capita water rate prior to implementation of the program--much higher than Seminole’s existing per capita water use rate, even in the Northwest Service Area. For that reason, Mr. Johnson's assumptions were not applicable to Seminole. In part as a result of his conservation adjustments, Dr. McCue assumed that Seminole would be allocated only 23.71 mgd of groundwater from 2013 on, instead of the 25.6 mgd of groundwater requested in the pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP. While on the one hand criticizing Dr. McCue's assumed conservation savings for being too low, Riverkeeper in particular also criticized Dr. McCue for applying any conservation adjustments to reduce the assumed groundwater allocation in the pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP. Riverkeeper argued essentially: that Seminole was entitled to the groundwater necessary to supply its 2013 projected demand, without any conservation reduction, as requested in the pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP; that Seminole essentially is being unfair to itself by not asserting in this case its entitlement to the full 25.6 mgd of groundwater requested for 2013 in the pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP (which would have the effect of reducing or eliminating its need for any water from the river); and that allowing Seminole to decline to take the maximum groundwater would somehow discourage other applicants from implementing conservation programs. These criticisms are rejected. First, there is no guarantee that the Consolidated Groundwater CUP will authorize the full requested amount, as the District has expressed concern about potential environmental impacts to wetlands and lake MFLs. Second, there is no guarantee that the District will approve the Consolidated Groundwater CUP in time to meet Seminole’s needs. At the time of the final hearing, it was projected that Seminole could begin to face a water deficit in some of its service areas as early as the end of 2008 if the Consolidated Groundwater CUP was not approved soon. Finally, there is no requirement that Seminole use groundwater up to the 2013 demand limit in the CFCA rules. If Seminole is allocated surface water from the St. Johns River in this case because it applied conservation adjustments to its demand calculations, the appropriate amount of groundwater Seminole needs for reasonable-beneficial use will be determined in the pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP application, which also will determine how much "redundancy" is appropriate, if any. Condition 4 of the TSR specifically provides that the combined allocations of surface water under CUP 95581 and groundwater resulting from pending Consolidated Groundwater CUP application may not exceed the total projected demand for all four service areas in any year. With his adjustments, Dr. McCue projected a total potable water demand (for all sources and all kinds of uses) of 23.19 mgd for 2013 and 28.1 mgd for 2027. Based on those assumptions, Dr. McCue projected a requirement for 0.46 mgd of AWS in 2012, none in 2013 and 2014, 0.18 mgd in 2015, with increasing AWS requirements each succeeding year, up to 4.39 mgd in 2027. Seminole also is requesting a maximum day allocation of 11.59 million gallons. Of this amount, 7.59 million gallons are attributable to potable water needs. This maximum day demand for potable water supply use was calculated using a peaking factor of 1.7 based on existing potable water use rates, which is consistent with the District’s applicable rules. See A.H. § 12.2.4. (ii) Reclaimed Water Seminole has undertaken the expansion of its reclaimed water system to existing potable water customers in the Northwest-Northeast Service Area, which receives reclaimed water from the Yankee Lake and the Greenwood Lakes WWTPs. In 2005, about 4 mgd of reclaimed water was produced at these facilities; by 2025, 8.16 mgd will be available for reclaimed use. Upon implementation of the reclaimed water retrofit program, roughly 75% of the reclaimed water produced by these facilities will be reused to meet annual average demand, and about 100% will be used to meet maximum day demands. This complies with the requirement that CUP applicants meet non-potable water demands through the use of lower quality sources, such as reclaimed water, when feasible. See A.H. § 10.3(g). The reclaimed retrofit program is being implemented in 5 phases. Phase I has been completed and was put on-line in 2008. Phase II will be completed in 2010. Phases III, IV, and V are scheduled to be completed in 2015. The reclaimed retrofit program cannot be accelerated, because Seminole must produce sufficient wastewater to meet reclaimed water demands in those areas. Otherwise, greater reclaimed water augmentation than requested in the pending CUP application would be required to meet reclaimed water demand. There was no genuine dispute as to Seminole's need for an mgd on an annual average basis and a four-million gallon maximum daily allocation to augment its reclaimed water system as a result of the reclaimed retrofit program. The relevant issue raised by the objectors is whether there are lower acceptable quality sources of water than the St. Johns River available to augment Seminole's reclaimed water system. See A.H. § 10.3(g). Seminole’s Consideration of AWS Options Before filing the application for the CUP at issue in this case, Seminole evaluated a number of AWS options, including brackish groundwater, seawater desalination, and the St. Johns River. Brackish Groundwater Seminole considered and actually identified brackish groundwater withdrawn from Lower Floridan Aquifer wells as a potential AWS source and applied for a CUP in 2004 to use brackish groundwater wells near its Greenwood Lakes WWTP as a source of water to augment its reclaimed water system. Preliminary modeling of withdrawals of 6.25 mgd from wells near the Greenwood Lakes WWTP and 1 mgd from wells near the Yankee Lake WWTP indicated that there would be adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, including the minimum level established at Lake Sylvan. The Greenwood Lakes WWTP is approximately five miles from Lake Sylvan. The Yankee Lakes WWTP is approximately a mile from Lake Sylvan. The modeled impacts on Lake Sylvan probably were significantly larger than the impacts of smaller brackish groundwater withdrawals, especially if withdrawn only from Greenwood Lakes wells. No pump tests were conducted. Even with limited knowledge, Seminole and the District concluded that the Lower Floridan Aquifer would not be a long- term, stable water supply source in Seminole and that use of brackish groundwater would require Seminole to design and construct a water treatment facility with a short useful life, making brackish groundwater an infeasible AWS option for Seminole. This conclusion was reached because there is little freshwater recharge to the Lower Floridan Aquifer in the area, and withdrawn brackish groundwater likely would be replenished by saltier water from the deeper aquifer, resulting in a degraded water supply. No expert testimony refuted that evaluation. Seawater Desalination The most probable location of a desalination facility to supply Seminole would be near the Atlantic Ocean in Volusia County. This option would require the construction of an extensive pipeline to transport desalinated water to Seminole, and reverse osmosis concentrate would have to be disposed of through an ocean outfall or deep injection well. Seawater desalination would require a complicated, expensive, and energy-intensive treatment process. The capital cost to supply 4.5 mgd to Seminole would be about $183 million, and operation costs would be twice those of the proposed Yankee Lake project, making the desalination option economically infeasible. RIBs Petitioners contended that Seminole should obtain supplemental water for its reclaimed system from its rapid infiltration basins (“RIBs”). RIBs are basins with highly- permeable soil that allow water to percolate into the surficial aquifer for disposal and beneficial recharge. Seminole uses RIBs to dispose of excess reclaimed water during wet weather conditions, when it is not needed to meet reclaimed water demands. When needed to meet reclaimed water demands, reclaimed water will be supplied to reclaimed water customers and will not be discharged to RIBs. Thus, reclaimed water will not be available from the RIBs during those times when augmentation water is needed. For RIBs to be used for reclaimed water augmentation, they would have to be combined with a large reservoir. The evidence was that a 400-acre, 450 million gallon reservoir would have to be constructed to store enough reclaimed water to meet Seminole’s augmentation needs. In addition, a treatment facility would be required to treat the reclaimed water stored in a reservoir prior to distribution to customers. Construction of the reservoir and treatment system would cost $110 million, which is far more than the $41 million required for construction of the reclaimed water augmentation component of the Yankee Lake Project. It would not be economically or technically feasible for Seminole to implement this reclaimed water storage and re- treatment system. Stormwater Petitioners also contend that Seminole could use stormwater to meet its reclaimed water augmentation needs, something that is almost unheard of in Florida. For this idea to work, stormwater would have to be captured and stored in order. This would require construction of a stormwater collection and transmission system extending throughout the Northwest Service Area. It also would require construction of a 450-million gallon reservoir and a treatment facility. The capital cost of a stormwater augmentation option would be $171 million, making it technically and economically infeasible. Tri-Party Agreement In December 1996, Seminole and the Cities of Sanford and Lake Mary entered into a contract known as the Tri-Party Agreement for the potential development of a regional reuse system. On its face, the agreement allows Seminole to obtain up to 2.75 mgd of reclaimed water from Sanford. However, in reality, the Tri-Party Agreement is not a feasible source of reclaimed water. First, the Tri-Party Agreement does not guarantee a specific quantity of reclaimed water that will always be available to Seminole. Second, Sanford's effluent is not required to meet the more stringent water quality standards, in particular for nitrogen, established for the Wekiva River Protection Zone, which Seminole’s Northwest-Northeast Service Area is in. Sanford only has to meet a 12 mg/l standard for nitrogen, while 10 mg/l is required for the Wekiva River Protection Zone. There is no indication that Sanford would be willing to guarantee 10 mg/l, and meeting the Wekiva River Protection Zone standards through blending would be problematic because blending would have to occur before introduction into Seminole's distribution system. Finally, Sanford’s reclaimed water transmission system does not operate at a high enough pressure to provide the required flow to Seminole’s system. For these reasons, despite the fact the Agreement has been in effect for over a decade, Sanford has been unable to provide any reclaimed water to Seminole. Iron Bridge WWTP The Iron Bridge WWTP is owned by the City of Orlando (Orlando). Under a contract with Orlando, Seminole sends wastewater from its Southeast Service Area to the facility and is entitled to receive a like amount of reclaimed water from the facility for reuse, up to a limit of 8.5 mgd. As a result, Seminole does not need augmentation for its reclaimed water reuse system for the Southeast Service Area. In addition to itself using reclaimed water under this contract, Seminole also sends some to the City of Oviedo (Oviedo) and to the University of Central Florida (UCF) under a contract for reuse by them. Riverkeeper in particular contends that Seminole should be required to use reclaimed water from the Iron Bridge WWTP to meet its needs for augmentation of its reclaimed water reuse system in the Northwest Service Area. But this would require the construction of multiple conveyance systems and large storage capacity to move sufficient quantities of reclaimed water from the Iron Bridge WWTP to the Northwest Service Area. In addition, it would create an augmentation deficit in the Southeast Service Area or eliminate amounts of reclaimed water being sent to Oviedo and UCF for reuse. The evidence was that this is not a feasible option for Seminole. St. Johns River Seminole’s ultimate selection of the St. Johns River as an AWS source was the culmination of more than a decade of planning and study. The 1994 District Water Supply Needs and Source Assessment found groundwater resources to be limited in Central Florida. The District engaged in the Water 2020 process to identify AWS sources to meet future demands in the region. The Water 2020 evaluation led to the development of the 2000 Surface Water Treatability Study at Lake Monroe on the St. Johns River, near the Yankee Lake site, which found the St. Johns River to be a cost-effective public supply source. In 1999-2000, the District developed the 2000 District Water Supply Plan, which identified the St. Johns River as a potential AWS source for Central Florida. The 2000 District Water Supply Plan was updated in 2004 to specifically identify the St. Johns River near Lake Monroe as a potential water source. The 2005 District Water Supply Plan re-confirmed the St. Johns River near Lake Monroe as a specific AWS project. Updates to the 2005 District Water Supply Plan also identified the Yankee Lake Site as the proposed location of the St. Johns River near the Lake Monroe Project. Starting in 2006, the District began implementation of an action plan for development of AWS sources consistent with the CFCA rules. The CFCA planning process also resulted in the identification of the proposed Yankee Lake Facility as an appropriate AWS source to meet Seminole’s post-2013 demands. In evaluating the St. Johns River as an AWS source, Seminole considered existing withdrawals from the St. Johns River. The Cities of Melbourne and Cocoa have used the St. Johns River for potable supply for several decades, and both are permitted to withdraw quantities greater than the 4.5 mgd requested by Seminole for potable use. In addition, the Cities of Deland, Winter Springs, and Sanford each have been permitted to use the St. Johns River as a reclaimed water augmentation source. These existing permitted uses have proved to be safe and reliable and created a reasonable expectation the river can be used for potable supply and reclaimed water augmentation. In addition to the planning and regulatory efforts described above, the District also established MFLs at various locations along the St. Johns River. In particular, the District established MFLs at State Road (SR) 44, which is 10 miles downstream of the Yankee Lake Site. In developing this MFL, the District determined that 155 mgd could be withdrawn from the St. Johns River upstream of SR 44. Since the requested 5.5 mgd is less than 4% of this quantity, the MFL determinations provide assurance that the river is a reliable AWS source. The capital costs of a 4.5 mgd surface water facility at Yankee Lake on the St. Johns River would be $78 million. The operation cost for a surface water facility at Yankee Lake would be much less than a seawater desalination facility, which would require twice as much energy as the surface water source. Capability and Environmental Concerns General The St. Johns River runs from south to north, starting at its headwaters in Indian River, Osceola, and Okeechobee Counties and emptying into the Atlantic Ocean in Duval County. The District has adopted 6 MFLs along the St. Johns River, and there are numerous United States Geologic Survey gauging stations which provide a long-term record of stage and flow. The St. Johns River Watershed is about 8,900 square miles. The St. Johns has a very gradual elevation decline from its headwater to its mouth. Rainfall, surface runoff, springs, seepage from the aquifer, and ocean tides affect the flow of the River. These characteristics result in relatively slow flow, slow reaction to rainfall, and reverse flows from the tidal influences. Seminole evaluated the historic relationships between rainfall and stage and flow in the St. Johns River over time. Because rainfall is the primary source of water for the St. Johns River, there is a close relationship between rainfall and river flow and stage. The stage and flow of the St. Johns River has fluctuated over time. These fluctuations are attributable to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is a long-term natural rainfall frequency cycle. Increases and decreases in flow and stage of the St. Johns River are explained by changes in rainfall. The evidence does not demonstrate manmade impacts to river stage or flow. The major tributaries of the St. Johns River are the Wekiva and Ocklawaha Rivers. The evidence does not indicate detectable impacts to the flow in the main stem of the St. Johns River due to changes in flow in these major tributaries. MFLs MFLs are defined as limits beyond which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. MFLs are established based on: the collection of ecological data to identify the most constraining water resource features; the development of hydrologic models to simulate the effects of water withdrawals; the preparation of reports; scientific peer review; and the adoption of standards by the District through formal rulemaking. See § 373.042, Fla. Stat. MFLs are used by the District to assess cumulative impacts on a water body. The MFLs determinations at SR 44 near Deland measure from withdrawals in existence prior to 1999. Existing permitted withdrawals on the St. Johns River upstream of the SR 44 MFL, plus Seminole’s proposed 5.5 mgd withdrawal, total 37.9 mgd. Of this total, 22 mgd was not being withdrawn from the St. Johns River prior to 1999. Seminole used a conservative 25 mgd of new withdrawals to evaluate potential cumulative impacts. A total of 57 mgd of withdrawals from the entire St. Johns River was used to evaluate cumulative impacts associated with Seminole’s proposed withdrawals. This amount reflects the total permitted quantity of water which was not being withdrawn prior to 1999. The District is required to establish recovery strategies when an MFL has been violated and prevention strategies when an MFL will be violated within the next 20 years. None of the MFLs on the St. Johns River require recovery or prevention strategies. Impact of Yankee Lake Withdrawal Flow and Stage The historic flow records do not indicate that the existing withdrawals have had a detectable impact on flow or stage. Since these withdrawals are significantly greater than Seminole’s proposed withdrawal, it is reasonable to conclude that Seminole’s proposed withdrawal also would have an undetectable impact on the St. Johns River. The historic relationship between rainfall and flow can also be used to evaluate whether historic withdrawals have had any impact on flow in the St. Johns River. A double-mass analysis of rainfall and flow on the St. Johns River does not indicate any change in the relationship between rainfall and flow over time, even as the quantity of withdrawals has increased. The evidence was that the proposed withdrawal of 5.5 mgd would not cause a measurable change in either the flow or stage of the St. Johns River on an individual basis or cumulatively with other withdrawals from the River. Salinity Seminole and the District used sophisticated hydrodynamic models to predict the impact of the proposed withdrawal, individually and cumulatively with other withdrawals on the St. Johns. The models were well-calibrated to observed data, including water level, velocity, salinity, and discharge. Pointing to differences between observed and modeled salinities, primarily at the Dames Point Bridge (relatively near the mouth of the river), Riverkeeper's modeling expert, Dr. Mark Luther, expressed concern that the models did not properly account for estuarine or overturning circulation and therefore did not accurately predict salinity changes. Dr. Peter Sucsy, who developed the models, recognized the importance of estuarine overturning circulation. However, with the exception of the Dames Point station, statistical analysis showed a very good fit between simulated and observed data. At the Dames Point Station, the differences between simulated and observed salinities are larger (1.6 parts per thousand). But that location is close enough to the mouth of the river that it often measures marine water and a narrow range in salinities. Taking this into consideration, the model matches the observed data reasonably well. Dr. Sucsy's models are sufficiently accurate to provide reasonable assurance with respect to harm to the estuary system from water withdrawals. Dr. Luther also testified that it would have been more appropriate to examine salinity changes for each layer of the hydrodynamic models, rather than using vertically-averaged salinity values. But Seminole's expert, Mr. Ivan Chou, determined that there was no perceptible difference in the salinity impacts derived from vertically-averaged salinity versus salinity values at specific model layers for the proposed 5.5 mgd and cumulative 57 mgd withdrawals. As a result, it was proper to use vertically-averaged salinities when evaluating the impact of Seminole’s proposed withdrawal. Using the hydrodynamic models, Mr. Chou compared salinity values at 60 points along the St. Johns River from the mouth of the river to Buffalo Bluff, which is 90 river miles upstream, for a pre-1999 baseline scenario, a 5.5 mgd individual withdrawal scenario, a cumulative withdrawal scenario of 25 mgd, a cumulative withdrawal scenario of 57 mgd, and the minimum flow scenario of 155 mgd. The baseline modeling scenario reflects the natural fluctuations in salinity that occur as a result of tidal influence and seasonal changes in rainfall. The natural fluctuation in salinity on a daily basis can be 7 to 8 parts per thousand (ppt), while the seasonal change can be as high as 20 ppt. When the simulated 5.5 mgd, 25 mgd, and 57 mgd withdrawals are plotted against the baseline salinity levels, whether for maximum or minimum daily or 5-year salinities, the differences are undetectable. (For the 155 mgd withdrawal scenario, there is a slightly increased salinity level, but the change is still a fraction of a ppt.) The same results occur when examining average salinities or dry season salinities (May and June). In the 57 mgd withdrawal scenario, the largest increase in average salinity under annual conditions is only 0.135 ppt, and under dry season conditions is only 0.170 ppt. Even in the 155 mgd scenario, the largest predicted increase in average salinity at any point on the St. Johns River is just 0.365 ppt. The withdrawal scenarios have minimal impact on the location of isohalines--a line representing a specific salinity level in the river. Under natural conditions, there are large daily and seasonal changes in the location of a particular isohaline due to tidal effects. For example, the 15 ppt isohaline moves 8.1 miles on the average day. In comparison, the withdrawal of 5.5 mgd would cause the 15 ppt isohaline to move by just 0.02 miles, a withdrawal of 25 mgd would cause the 15 ppt isohaline to move 0.07 miles, and a withdrawal of 57 mgd would cause the 15 ppt isohaline to move 0.59 miles during the dry season. The salinity modeling demonstrates that the impact of Seminole’s proposed 5.5 mgd withdrawal is so small as to be indiscernible with the field instruments used to measure salinity in the St. Johns River. The cumulative withdrawal scenarios of 25 mgd and 57 mgd are similarly minimal and would not be measurable using conventional instrumentation. Nutrients The most prominent manifestation of nutrient imbalance in the St. Johns River is the increase in algal biomass, which can result in algal blooms. In the St. Johns River, algal biomass begins to accumulate in April, and the potential for algal blooms continues through September. Seminole will not make any nutrient discharges to the St. Johns River as part of its proposed use of water. Instead, the proposed withdrawals will remove nutrients from the River. It was determined there would not be a significant hydrodynamic impact from any of the three withdrawal scenarios. A 5.5 mgd withdrawal results in just a 0.17% decrease in flow, a 25 mgd withdrawal results in a 0.8% decrease in flow, and a 57 mgd withdrawal results in a 1.8% decrease in flow. From 1995-2007, the average total nitrogen level in the vicinity of the Yankee Lake site was 1.51 mg/l, while the average total phosphorus concentration was 0.09 mg/l. For 2003- 2007, the average total nitrogen concentration was 1.29 mg/l, while the average total phosphorus concentration was 0.09 mg/l. For the 5.5 mgd withdrawal scenario, the quantity of water removed would result in a 0.13% reduction in nitrogen loading and 0.14% reduction in phosphorus loading compared to the 1995- 2007 levels, and a 0.11% reduction in nitrogen loading and 0.14% reduction in phosphorus loading compared to 2003-2007 levels. A comparison of flow and load reduction for the 5.5 mgd withdrawal shows no impact on water quality. The same relationship holds true for cumulative withdrawals of 25 mgd or 57 mgd. Withdrawals of water from the River can increase residence time, which in turn has the potential to increase biomass in the water body. Seminole and the District used another version of Dr. Sucsy's hydrodynamic model to simulate water age and evaluate the effect of 5.5 mgd and 55.4 mgd withdrawals on residence time in the Lower St. Johns River. Compared to the baseline condition of 1996-2005, a withdrawal of 5.5 mgd is projected to cause a slight increase in the duration of algal blooms at Racy Point and Lake George. Under baseline conditions, an algal bloom with a duration of 60 days is expected to occur once every other year, an algal bloom with a duration of 71 days is expected to occur once every three years, and an algal bloom with a duration of 115 days is expected to occur once every 20 years. When Seminole’s proposed 5.5 mgd withdrawal is applied to these baseline values, the duration of an algal bloom increases by less than one hour once every other year up to 3.2 hours once every 20 years. When the cumulative 55.4 mgd scenario is applied, the duration of an algal bloom increases by 22.6 hours once every other year up to 71 hours once every 20 years. It is possible to offset the elevated algal biomass resulting from the slight increase in residence time from surface water withdrawals by further reducing nutrient loading to the river. Seminole and the District propose to achieve this nutrient reduction through reductions in discharges from the Iron Bridge WWTP. The Iron Bridge facility currently discharges treated wastewater to the Little Econlockhatchee River (the Little Econ), a tributary of the St. Johns River. However, Seminole and the other Iron Bridge participants plan to eliminate the discharge of wastewater to the Little Econ through increased reclaimed water use. The cessation of discharges to the Little Econ from the Iron Bridge facility will more than offset the impacts of increased retention time caused by the Yankee Lake withdrawal. The load reduction achieved through elimination of the Little Econ discharges is 3.3 times greater than the load reduction that would have to be achieved in order to offset the increased residence time. Even at 11.59 mgd, the maximum permitted daily withdrawal from the Yankee Lake intake facility, the Iron Bridge offset would still be 1.7 times greater than the amount needed to offset increased residence time. The District and Seminole have agreed to an additional permit condition that would prohibit Seminole from withdrawing water from the St. Johns River on any day following a day when discharges have occurred to the Little Econ from April 1 to September 15. This additional condition provides reasonable assurance that the proposed CUP will not cause or contribute to an increase in nutrients in the River. It is not uncommon for the District to require permittees to work with other entities to make reclaimed water changes a condition for CUP issuance. Such a permit condition appears in a recent CUP issued to the Orlando Utilities Commission. Riverkeeper in particular contends that these permit conditions are not enforceable without the agreement of the other entities involved in Iron Bridge, namely those who would relinquish a right to discharge to the Little Econ. But the condition clearly is enforceable against Seminole. Ecological Evaluation The evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will be no discernable changes to key ecological parameters as a result of the Yankee Lake withdrawal, individually or cumulatively with other surface water withdrawals from the River system. Ongoing withdrawals on the Peace and Alafia Rivers having a much greater impact on the flow of water in those rivers than the proposed Yankee Lake withdrawal, individually or cumulatively, have not caused significant changes in vegetation, benthic invertebrates, fish population, phytoplankton population, or other indicators. The evidence was that there was no appreciable change in population of the American shad, a common species in the St. Johns River, between the 1970s and 2000s. No appreciable change in the biodiversity of fish species is expected as a result of the proposed Yankee Lake withdrawal, individually or cumulatively. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides a static habitat and a food source for aquatic species. The most common SAV in the St. Johns River is Vallisneria americana, or tape grass, which occurs in freshwater and oligohaline habitats. Its ideal salinity level is 1 ppt or less, but it can tolerate salinities up to 8 or 9 ppt. Between 1999 and 2001, an extended drought resulted in a fairly sizable decline in Vallisneria in the Lower St. Johns River due to higher salinities. Data from 2003-2004 indicate that Vallisneria had expanded and re-colonized areas with salinities up to 5 ppt. Since changes in salinity as a result of Seminole’s proposed withdrawal, on an individual or cumulative basis, will be small, it is not expected that there will be a significant impact on Vallisneria, or the aquatic life that depends on it. Riverkeeper witness Robin Lewis testified that existing withdrawals have reduced flows in the St. Johns River, which has impacted the ability of SAV to recover from higher salinities that occur during droughts. However, the graph he relied on to show a declining trend in flows in the St. Johns River only reflected data recorded through 2002; the most recent flow data indicates there has been an increase in flows, with the highest flow on record at SR 44 occurring in August 2008. The evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will be no impact to macroinvertebrates as a result of Seminole’s proposed withdrawal. Macroinvertebrates tolerate wide salinity ranges, and there would be no meaningful change in the distribution of macroinvertebrates due to Seminole’s proposed withdrawal. Impingement and Entrainment The intake structure for the proposed Yankee Lake facility is designed to prevent impingement and entrainment by minimizing the velocity of water entering the structure and by using a series of screens to prevent entry into the structure. The intake structure is in an area where the intake velocity would be equal to or less than the velocity of the river, making the intake structure area an unattractive place for fish to spawn. While fish and other mobile aquatic life would not be expected to be impinged or entrained, it is expected that some immobile aquatic life forms, such as certain fish eggs, will become entrained. Jacksonville’s consultant Terry Cheek estimated that 35,000 American shad eggs could be entrained by Seminole’s proposed withdrawal each year. However, an American shad female typically carries about 470,000 eggs and spawns repeatedly during a season, meaning a single female can produce more than a million eggs in a season. Meanwhile, the average number of female shad removed from the St. Johns River due to recreational fishing is about 1,130 individuals, meaning that fishing removes about 530 million eggs from the St. Johns River every year. Even if the egg density were two orders of magnitude greater than Mr. Cheek assumed, entrainment would remove far fewer eggs from the St. Johns River than recreational fishing. Public Interest The evidence provided reasonable assurance that the issuance of Seminole’s CUP is in the public interest. It will provide a source of needed potable water other than stressed fresh groundwater. It will allow Seminole to maximize reuse of reclaimed water, which will also reduce its need for fresh groundwater. There is reasonable assurance that environmental harm from the issuance of Seminole’s CUP will not be significant and has been reduced to an acceptable amount. St. Johns County in particular contends that, despite all the evidence of reasonable assurance provided, not enough consideration has been given to the impact of Seminole’s CUP project on the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve and Seminole's Black Bear Wilderness Area. However, additional consideration of those kinds of impacts will be considered in further required permitting for the project. The evidence in this case provided reasonable assurance that the proposed water withdrawal will not significantly harm those natural resources and that harm to those resources has been reduced to an acceptable amount. The Petitioners contend that issuance of Seminole’s CUP should be delayed until after the District completes its two-year AWS Study of the entire St. Johns River basin, including the Oklawaha. The greater weight of evidence indicates that such a delay is unwarranted and would impose additional unnecessary costs on Seminole. Starting in 2006, Seminole implemented an increased rate structure to finance a $156 million bond issue for its water and wastewater capital improvement program, including the Yankee Lake Project. Seminole has also received a $7.5 million grant from the District to finance the project. Seminole has already incurred approximately $4.3 million in engineering design services. If the project were delayed one year, it would incur about $4.5 million of additional costs. If the Yankee Lake Project were delayed more than a year, Seminole would incur additional cost of $15.4 million, including the expenditures to date and the loss of the $7.5 million in grant money. Given the extra costs that would be incurred by Seminole and its residents as a result of any delay in implementation of the Yankee Lake Project, deferring Seminole’s CUP until after completion of the larger AWS study would not be in the public interest. Petitioners' Standing Riverkeeper bases its standing in part on allegations that Seminole’s proposed use will impact the use and enjoyment of the St. Johns River by a substantial number of Riverkeeper’s members. A substantial number of Riverkeeper's members use and enjoy the River for recreation, boating, fishing, watching wildlife, and similar activities. However, it was not proven that Seminole's proposed CUP will affect their use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources of the River. Riverkeeper also bases its standing in part on Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, which allows not-for- profit corporations to establish standing if they have 25 members residing in the county where the proposed activity is to take place. Riverkeeper introduced evidence that, by the time of the final hearing, it had more than 25 members residing in Seminole County. Some of these Seminole residents did not join Riverkeeper until shortly before the final hearing. Seminole did not object to testimony regarding the new Seminole members of Riverkeeper, and it was given an opportunity to depose the witness during the hearing but declined to do so. (Seminole's objection to admission of an updated membership list into evidence was overruled.) At the conclusion of Riverkeeper's case on the second-to-last day of the final hearing, Riverkeeper made an ore tenus motion to amend its petition to allege standing based on Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, and ruling was reserved. See Conclusion of Law 141, infra, for the ruling. Jacksonville and St. Johns County base their standing on Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, which allows local governments to establish standing by filing a verified pleading alleging that the permitted activity will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state. Jacksonville and St. Johns County filed the verified petitions required by Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In addition, the evidence proved that Seminole’s proposed CUP will impair, pollute, or otherwise injure the air, water, or other natural resources of the state to some extent, even if not enough to require denial of the CUP application, especially before the agreement between the District and Seminole to add a condition to the CUP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order granting Seminole's pending CUP 95581 with the conditions specified in the TSR and the additional condition proposed by the District and Seminole regarding nutrient impacts. Jurisdiction is retained for up to 30 days after the District's entry of its final order to rule on Seminole's motions for attorney's fees and costs under Sections 57.105(4) and 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, by a separate final order if Seminole invokes the exercise of that jurisdiction within the 30-day time period. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the portion of Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application Number 97106 seeking an allocation of 499,000 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater for commercial/industrial uses (supply bulk water to bottling plants) meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.301, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water.1 The County does not oppose or contest the portion of the CUP application authorizing use of 6.0 million gpd of surface water for limerock mining operations.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County operates a water supply utility that supplies water for a variety of uses, including providing untreated water, in bulk, for bottling purposes. The County is currently engaged in a long-range planning effort designed to assess water supply demands and sources to supply those demands in the County over the next 50 years. The County also has completed a study of the two major springs in the County (Rainbow Springs and Silver Springs), and the County’s Board of County Commissioners is in the process of enacting certain recommendations contained in the study. The well for the proposed CUP allocation is located on approximately 160 acres in northern Marion County. Hastings and Greene's father owned the property from 1978 until the latter's death. In 1993, the latter's interest was transferred to Greene and two brothers, who now hold title to the property along with Hastings. The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and is charged with the duty to prevent harm to water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The District has implemented Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in part, through the adoption of Rule Chapters 40C-2 and 40C-20, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water. Historic Uses of Water on the Mine Site Since the 1980s, the property where the proposed withdrawals will occur has been used for mining of limerock and has been known as the “Black Sink Mine." A ten-inch diameter well has been located on the Black Sink Mine property for 35 years. The well was originally used to provide water to augment water levels in canals in and around the Black Sink Mine property. Later the well was used to irrigate watermelons grown on the property before the mining operation began. The limerock mining operation at Black Sink Mine uses approximately 6 million gpd of surface water. The mine pit at the site is divided by an earthen berm that separates a larger, previously mined area from a smaller area where active mining is occurring. Surface water is pumped from the actively mined portion of the pit to the larger, previously mined portion of the pit, to enable mining of the limerock material to be conducted at levels below the water table. Dewatering is necessary in order to remove the limerock. A majority of the property is mined to a depth of 55 feet below land surface. The limerock material extracted from the site is transported by trucks from the site, approximately 100 trucks per day, to various sites across North Florida. The Need for the Proposed Use of Groundwater If mining of limerock continues at the current pace, the limerock material at the Black Sink Mine will be exhausted within a year. Recognizing that the productive use of the property for limerock mining was nearing an end, Greene and Hastings began exploring other potential uses for the property, including use of the existing well on the property for production of bottled water. To explore the feasibility of producing water for bottling from the existing well, in 2004 Greene and Hastings engaged an engineering firm with expertise in water resources to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the mine property and well. The results of the study, showing water of sufficient quality and quantity for production of bottled water, motivated Greene and Hastings to submit the CUP application which was the subject of the hearing. The study also determined that water withdrawn from the well could be marketed as spring water. Greene and Hastings also determined through market research that the demand for bottled water has increased at the rate of ten percent per year for the last 4-5 years and that Florida bottlers were interested in purchasing water from the well on the mine site in bulk for bottling. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the water use proposed by Greene and Hastings is in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, Greene and Hastings must show that the amount to be used is consistent with what would typically be required for the activity being supplied; that the water will be used efficiently with loss or waste minimized; and that there is a demonstrated need for the water proposed for allocation. To demonstrate a need for the 499,000 gpd of groundwater requested in the application for an allocation of 499,000 gpd of groundwater, Greene and Hastings provided letters from two businesses engaged in bottling of water stating an intent to purchase specific quantities of water produced from the Greene and Hastings well should the CUP be granted. One of the letters of intent came from a bottler in Jacksonville, Florida, stating its intention to initially purchase 100,000 gpd of Greene and Hastings’s water. The other was from a bottler in Stuart, Florida, dated January 9, 2006, stating its intention to purchase 125,000 gpd of water from Greene and Hastings within “the next 12-24 months.” Based on these letters Greene and Hastings initially requested an allocation of 200,000 gpd of groundwater for the first year of the permit. Prior to completion of the CUP application, Greene and Hastings learned that because the Stuart bottler’s facility was located outside the geographic boundaries of the District, to transport water from the Black Sink Mine to the Stuart facility would require additional data and information related to inter- district transfers of groundwater. Greene and Hastings elected to reduce the requested allocation for the first year of the permit to 100,000 gpd, relying on the letter from the Jacksonville bottler. Based on the current market demand for bottled water, and based on the fact that there are other bottlers of water within the boundaries of the District purchasing water for bottling, it is reasonable to conclude that Greene and Hastings can sell 499,000 gpd of water from the well on the Black Sink Mine property by the end of the fifth year of the proposed CUP. These facts support the conclusion that there is a need for the amount of water requested by Greene and Hastings. In addition, the permit is conditioned to require a compliance review at five-year intervals during the term of the permit. Should Greene and Hastings not be successful in selling the full 499,000 gpd allocated by the fifth year of the permit, the District has the ability as part of the five-year compliance review to modify the permit to reduce the allocation based on the amount of water actually used for bottled water. Efficiency of the Proposed Use of Water The production of water in bulk for shipment to a bottler is a highly efficient use of water. There is very little if any water lost in the withdrawal and loading of the water; almost all the water goes to the end product. The evidence establishes that the use proposed by Greene and Hastings is an efficient use of water. Potential Impacts from the Proposed Groundwater Allocation The source of the groundwater proposed for use by Greene and Hastings is the Floridan aquifer. Because there is no confining layer in the vicinity of the Black Sink Mine that would retard movement of water between the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer, both the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer essentially behave as one unit. Thus, any drawdown in the surficial aquifer associated with groundwater withdrawals at this location will be the same as the related drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer as a result of groundwater withdrawals. The Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the amount of groundwater requested by Greene and Hastings in the application. To assess the level of drawdown expected to occur in both the Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer as a consequence of the proposed groundwater withdrawals, Greene and Hastings engaged a consultant, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., to run a groundwater model to simulate the proposed withdrawal and predict the anticipated drawdown. The groundwater model selected for use for this application was the North Central Florida Regional Groundwater Flow Model, a model developed for the District by the University of Florida for use in Marion County and surrounding areas. This model is an accepted and reliable tool for predicting aquifer drawdown associated with groundwater withdrawals at the location of the withdrawals proposed in this application and is used extensively by the District in its CUP program. To simulate the drawdown associated with the withdrawal of 499,000 gpd from the Florida aquifer, Greene and Hastings’s consultant inserted a pumping well in the model grid where the Black Sink Mine is located. The model then simulated pumping from the well at 499,000 gpd. The model results are graphically depicted on maps showing drawdown contours overlain on the Black Sink Mine Site, illustrating the level of drawdown in the aquifer and the distance the level of drawdown extends out from the well site. The model predicts a drawdown of 0.03 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the well on the Black Sink Mine property, and a drawdown of 0.02 feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers extending out to a distance of approximately 5,000 feet from the well, less than 1/3 of an inch of drawdown. The model results represent a reasonable estimation of the drawdown that will occur as a consequence of withdrawal of 499,000 gpd of groundwater at the Black Sink Mine as proposed in the application. The impact of the 0.02-0.03 foot drawdown predicted by the model was variously characterized by the experts who testified at the final hearing as “not practically measurable,” an “insignificant impact,” “very small,” or “de minimus.” The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause significant saline water intrusion, nor will it further aggravate any existing saline water intrusion problems. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest. Because the predicted drawdown is so small, it will not interfere with any existing legal uses of water. Neither will the predicted drawdown cause serious harm to the quality of the source of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings. With regard to the issue of interference with existing legal users, the County argued that the District should have considered whether there is sufficient groundwater available to meet all projected needs for water in the County during the 20- year term of the permit, as well as the additional cost County citizens will need to bear to secure alternative water supplies as a result of any future shortfalls in available groundwater. The County projects, based on planning estimates, that use of groundwater to supply all anticipated uses of water in the County will be limited within 20-30 years from the present. Such “limits” would not become an issue until after the Greene and Hastings permit expires. Thereafter, water users in the County will have to rely on alternative water sources, conservation, reuse of reclaimed water, and surface water. The anticipated growth in demand in the County’s planning estimates includes anticipated growth in the commercial/industrial category of uses. The County’s estimated limits on groundwater use will occur whether or not the CUP requested by Greene and Hastings is approved. The District does not base its permitting decisions on a pending CUP application on the possibility that the source of water may become limited at some future time for water uses not presently permitted, provided the application meets all permitting criteria. The District allocates water for recognized beneficial uses of water, such as commercial/industrial uses, as long as the water is available and the application meets District criteria. The District allocates water as long as an allocation does not cause harm to the resource. Based on these facts, the proposed use of water by Greene and Hastings will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. No Evidence of Economic or Environmental Harm Because the predicted drawdown associated with the proposed use of water is so small, and because no impacts are anticipated on any surrounding properties or water uses, Greene and Hastings have provided reasonable assurance that any economic harm caused by the proposed use has been reduced to an acceptable amount. For purposes of determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that any environmental harm caused by a proposed use of water is reduced to an acceptable amount, the District examines modeling results showing the level of drawdown predicted for the use and also examines the resources in and around the site of a withdrawal to determine the likely impact of the drawdown predicted for the withdrawal on those resources. The District’s environmental scientists examined the Black Sink Mine site and the surrounding landscape and determined that, based on the characteristics of the landscape in and around the site of the proposed withdrawal and based on the negligible drawdown impact predicted for the proposed water use in both the Floridan and surficial aquifers, there will be no environmental harm resulting from the allocation of groundwater contained in the CUP. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause damage to crops, wetlands, or other types of vegetation. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not cause the water table to be lowered so that stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by Greene and Hastings. The CUP will not use water that the District has reserved pursuant to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40C-2.301(4). No Impact on Established Minimum Flows or Levels No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established by the District pursuant to Rule Chapter 40C-8 for any of the water bodies in Marion County that may be affected by the proposed water use. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum flow is the St. Johns River at the State Road 44 bridge located more than 50 miles from the Black Sink Mine property. The closest water body for which the District has established a minimum level is Star Lake in Northwest Putnam County, more than nine miles from the mine site. Because of the distance of these water bodies from the withdrawal site and because of the negligible drawdown expected to be caused by the proposed use of water, the use will not cause an established minimum flow or level to be exceeded during the term of the permit. Other Reasonable-Beneficial Use Considerations All available conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, and technically feasible are proposed for implementation in the application by Greene and Hastings for the uses proposed by them. Greene and Hastings submitted to the District, as part of the application, a conservation plan that complies with the requirements of A.H. Section 10.3(e). Reclaimed water, as defined in the District’s rules, is not currently available to be used in place of the water proposed for use by Greene and Hastings in the application. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards in receiving waters of the state. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in the application will not cause or contribute to flood damage. The Use is Consistent With the Public Interest With regard to the determination of whether reasonable assurance was provided that the proposed use is consistent with the public interest, the County contends that: 1) Greene and Hastings must show that any necessary approvals required by the County’s Comprehensive Plan and/or its LDRs for use of the site for producing bottled water have been obtained; 2) that the District did not properly consider the effect of existence of lawn watering restrictions affecting citizens in the County in evaluating the application; and 3) that the District should have considered the amount of money the applicant may stand to gain from the use of the water requested in the application. In examining whether an application is consistent with the public interest, the District considers whether a particular use of water is going to be beneficial or detrimental to the people of the area and to water resources within the state. In this inquiry, the District considers whether the use of water is efficient, whether there is a need for the water requested, and whether the use is for a legitimate purpose; and the inquiry focuses on the impact of the use on water resources and existing legal users. Sale of water for bottling for human consumption is recognized by the District as a legitimate, beneficial economic enterprise. Use of water for human consumption is among the highest and best uses permitted by the District. For reasons outlined above in the Recommended Order, there are no detrimental impacts that will result from this use of water. The District does not consider whether local government approvals have been obtained prior to issuance of a CUP for purposes of determining whether the application is consistent with the public interest. Neither does the District consider impacts related to local roads from trucks transporting the water or other impacts not related to water resources. No such requirements are included in the District’s adopted permitting criteria. There are no water shortage orders in effect in the District at present. In evaluating a CUP application, the District considers whether its permitting criteria will be met during periods of normal weather as well as during periods of drought. Withdrawals authorized in CUPs can be restricted by order of the District during periods of water shortage, such as droughts. Thus, the possibility of a water shortage order being entered in the County in the future, or the fact that such orders may have been in effect there in the past, does not mean the application is not consistent with the public interest. The District critically examines the efficiency of all water uses for purposes of enacting its regulatory requirements regarding CUPs and in evaluating CUP applications. The District has adopted restrictions on landscape irrigation (which apply to all such users throughout the District’s jurisdiction, not just in Marion County) limiting landscape irrigation to no more than two days per week. The limitations on landscape irrigation exist because this type of use has been determined to be a highly inefficient, wasteful use of water without such restrictions. By contrast, the use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings is a highly efficient use of water, resulting in little or no loss or waste of water. The District does not consider the level of financial gain or benefit an applicant will derive from a permitted use of water for purposes of determining whether the proposed use is consistent with the public interest. Most, if not all permitted users of water derive some level of economic benefit from the water they use, and the District’s rule criteria do not provide standards for evaluating such gain or that otherwise limit the amount of such gain. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the use of water proposed in the application is consistent with the public interest. Groundwater is the Lowest Quality Source for this Use The County contends that groundwater is not the lowest quality source of water available for the use proposed by Greene and Hastings, in that surface water from the mine pit on the site could be treated and used for bottling in place of groundwater. From the testimony, it is clear that Greene and Hastings’s ability to market water for bottling from the Black Sink Mine is dependent on such water being capable of being labeled as spring water, and on such water being delivered without having gone through any treatment processes. The testimony also establishes that because of the connection between the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the site, using surface water instead of groundwater to supply the proposed use would result in little if any reduction in impacts to the Floridan aquifer. More importantly, because the application proposes use of water for direct human consumption, the District’s rules do not require use of a lower quality source of water. For the foregoing reasons, groundwater is the lowest quality source of water suitable for use for bottled water for human consumption. The District’s Noticing Was Adequate and Appropriate The District provided notice of its receipt of the Greene and Hastings CUP application by publishing notice in the Ocala Star-Banner, a newspaper of general circulation in Marion County, on January 25, 2005, with an amended notice being published on February 16, 2005, and also by letters to the County dated January 20, 2005, and February 10, 2005. In each notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded to the notices by sending a letter of objection to the application dated February 14, 2005. Thus, the County received sufficient information regarding the location of the proposed use to enable it to prepare and file a letter of objection to the application, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice. The District provided personal notice of its intent to issue a CUP to Greene and Hastings by letter dated April 5, 2006. In this notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by section, township, and range. The County responded by filing petitions that have resulted in this proceeding. Thus, the County received sufficient notice of the location of the use addressed in the District’s intent to issue to enable it to initiate administrative proceedings regarding the permit, and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter an order granting CUP No. 97106 to Greene and Hastings with the conditions recommended in the District’s Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a multi-county water management district which was created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and which operates pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District is the local sponsor for the federally-authorized "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control" and as such, operates and maintains various water control facilities and impoundments in South Florida, as authorized and constructed by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction of the District encompasses 16 counties in southern and central Florida, from Marion County in the north to Monroe County in the south. Water Conservation Area 2A is one of several water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction and is a part of the federally-authorized Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control. On April 13, June 2, August 10, September 26, October 19, and October 20, 1978, the Governing Board of the District held public hearings and workshop meetings to receive comments from the District staff and the general public concerning the proposed "draw down" or alteration of water levels in Water Conservation Area 2A. Notice of the September 26, 1978 public hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume No. 4, No. 36, on September 8, 1978. By the terms of the notice, the purpose of the September 26th public hearing was: To provide interested citizens with an opportunity to express their opinions and hear testimony regarding the District's proposal to lower the water level in Conservation Area 2A, located in western Palm Beach and Broward counties. The purpose of the draw down is to con- solidate the bottom sediments so that a more flexible water schedule can be begun to preserve the natural Everglades ecology . . . . After considering information received from staff and the general public, the Governing Board entered its "Order" No. 78-12 dated October 20, 1978 containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This "order" provided, in pertinent part: That the staff take appropriate measures to accomplish the following: A draw down from current high water levels will be initiated October 31, 1978, with the goal of reducing water levels in the central portion of the marsh to ground level by December 31 (about 11.2 feet msl). From this point, water levels shall be allowed to continue to recede to a minimum level of 9.5' by the end of May, 1979. Water levels will be allowed to rise to about 12.5' msl by October 31, 1979. That the staff take appropriate measures to regulate water levels in Conservation Area 2A between 12.5' and 9.5' msl as provided in Paragraph 1. until November of 1981. That the regulation of Conservation Area 2A be carried out in a flexible manner to insure maximum environmental benefits and that adjustments in water level fluctuations and stages may be made predicated upon the environmental response of the Conservation Area 2A ecosystem resulting from the previous year's hydroperiod. That the staff pursue such research and data collection as is necessary to fully document the conditions of the marsh throughout the three year duration of the project. No formal hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, were requested as a result of the aforementioned workshop, public hearings or agency action embodied in the "order" of October 20, 1978. It is undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, relating to rule making in issuing its Order of October 20, 1978. Petitioner, Joe Burgess, is the owner of Hinckle's Bait and Tackle Shop on State Road 84 in Broward County, approximately 12 miles from Conservation Area 2A. Petitioner Burgess derives approximately 60 to 70 percent of his business from customers who use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, Petitioner Burgess personally uses Conservation Area 2A for hunting and fishing. Petitioner, Keith Finlayson, is an environmentalist who uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes, including fishing, bird watching, observing animals in their natural habitats and flora identification. Petitioner Finalyson uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes approximately two to three times per week. Petitioner, Concerned Citizens for the Everglades, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida corporation, some of whose members presently use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Other members of the organization derive their living from businesses supported by revenues obtained from the general public directly attributable to "use" of Conservation Area 2A. One of the effects of the "draw down" will be to make certain portions of Conservation Area 2A inaccessible by boat during some periods of the year, thereby curtailing recreational and other use of the those areas. Water Conservation Area 2A, and other such areas within the jurisdiction of Respondent, is surrounded by levies and various water control structures and is operated independently of other water conservation areas, which are also surrounded by levies and water control structures. All of the water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction are subject to different and independent water regulation schedules. The evidence establishes that it is not feasible to apply the same regulation schedule to all water conservation areas due to differences in topography. In fact, it is anticipated that a different regulation schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A will be developed after the current three-year draw down period is concluded. Although originally scheduled to commence on November 1, 1978, the "draw down" of water levels in Conservation Area 2A was delayed as a result of legal actions taken in state courts. As a result, the District did not actually begin the "draw down" until August, 1980.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
