The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Sarasota County Utilities should be issued a consumptive use permit to draw water from the 14 wells in issue here located in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for themanagement of water resources within its area of geographical jurisdiction. Included therein was the responsibility for the permitting of consumptive water use. The Respondent, Sarasota County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utilities division which is charged with meeting, among other things, the potable water needs of the residents of the County. Petitioners Wyatt S. Bishop and Joan Jones are both residents of Sarasota County and both draw their potable water from wells which utilize the aquifers pertinent to the wells for which the permit in issue here relate. Mr. Bishop lives approximately 7.5 miles north of the Carlton Reserve, the property on which the wells in issue are located, and Ms. Jones lives approximately 7 miles from the Reserve, but in a different direction. Sarasota County filed an application for a consumptive use permit with the District on January 28, 1987 requesting an average daily withdrawal of 10.71 million gallons per day, (mgd), and a peak monthly withdrawal of 15.55 mgd. This application, assigned number 208836.00, was, over the next three years, amended by the County four separate times. These amendments reflected revised water demand determinations and were submitted to provide additional information requested by the District. The District issued a preliminary staff report and proposed intent on March 26, 1991 reflecting an approved withdrawal in the amount of 7.28 mgd average daily withdrawal and 11.1 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. These figures were revised, however, byan amendment by the District on July 8, 1991, and as amended, authorize 7.303 mgd average daily withdrawal and 9.625 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. The County's application was reviewed by an experienced hydrologist in the District office with extensive permit review experience who utilized, in his evaluation of the permit, the pertinent District rules and policies. By way of background, to more easily understand the circumstances here, Sarasota entered into a contract with Manatee County in 1973 which called for the latter to provide up to 10 mgd of water for a period of 40 years, up to and including the year 2013. However, in 1979, Manatee County's utilities director advised Sarasota County that it, Sarasota County, could not continue to rely on Manatee County's water after the expiration of the current contract, and would, therefore, have to become self sufficient in water. Since the MacArthur tract, now known as the Carlton Reserve, had just recently been identified by, inter alia, the United States Geological Service as a potential long term water source for Sarasota County, after Manatee County advised Sarasota County of its future expectations, Sarasota County and the Manasota Basin Board hired a consulting firm to conduct hydrological testing on the Carlton Reserve. This study concluded that the Reserve had sufficient water resources to satisfy the needs of the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County for an extended time into the future. In 1985, because of its increased water needs and thetime necessary to complete required studies on the utilization of the Myakka River, a surface water resource, Sarasota County concluded that it was suffering a water supply shortage and entered into a supplemental contract with Manatee County to provide 2 million gallons of water per day over a 5 year period which would expire in 1990. Sarasota County had not, however, been idle with regard to the investigation of other water resources. Studies done included not only the Myakka River mentioned above but a reservoir owned by the City of Bradenton, and the Peace River. Nonetheless, it was determined that the Carlton Reserve was the best source available overall, and in 1987, the County filed the application in issue here. The permit was under consideration for approximately 3 1/2 years before the initial decision by the District to grant it. During that time the County experienced a significant deficiency in its water sources and found it necessary, on February 5, 1991, to enter into another contract with Manatee County to supply an addition 5 mgd. Terms of that contract clearly indicate the expectations of both parties that Sarasota County will take reasonable steps to develop its own water resources. It is not as though Sarasota County sat quietly in the interim, however, and allowed the situation to develop. A building moratorium to halt additional construction was proposed and as a result, economic forces in the County indicated a potential loss of jobs to County residents. None of this would be desirable from an economicstandpoint. In the course of the permit application process, 12 test wells were sunk to conduct aquifer pump tests; to assess water quality, amounts and availability, aquifer characteristics and drawdown; and to determine the impact of withdrawal on water quality. Eight of these 12 wells are located on the Carlton Reserve. The other 4 are located on property owned by the MacArthur Foundation which is contiguous to the Carlton Reserve property and from which Sarasota has a right by easement to draw water. The 2 wells yet to be constructed will be on Sarasota County property. Sarasota County currently receives 10 mgd of water under its contract with Manatee County; an additional 5 mgd under the February 5, 1991 contract; 2 mgd from the University wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 3 mgd); and .9 mgd from the Sorrento wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 1.1 mgd). This latter source is only producing currently .6 mgd of potable water due to constraints imposed by the water treatment requirements. Taken together, the current Sarasota County supply constitutes 18.6 mgd. The above does not take into account the County's agreement with the City of Sarasota calling for the purchase of up to 2 mgd. Since this source is not reliable, it is not included in the total, and the City is not considered an available water source. In addition, the District and Sarasota County stipulated on July 15, 1991 that within 30 days, the County would apply tophase out routine water production from the Sorrento wellfield, relying on it only in emergency situations with District consent. For this reason, it, too, is not considered an available water supply source. These currently existing sources, with modifications as described, will be the primary sources of potable water provided to 6 major service areas in Sarasota County when the County's water treatment plant and transmission system are complete in 1993. In attempting to define the County's future water requirements, two major criteria were considered. The first was the County's historical water demand, and the second, modifying it, relates to the demand arising as a result of new water users being added to the system as a result of the County's capital improvements and acquisition program. Water resources are not unlimited. Current resources come primarily from Manatee County and there are constraints on this supply as it is made available to Sarasota County. For example, the 10 mgd contract expires in 2013. The 5 mgd contract expires in 2001. Though the latter is subject to renewal, renewal is contingent upon the availability of water supply at that time, and that is not a sure thing. It can, therefore, readily be seen that 15 out of the 18.6 mgd routinely available now comes from Manatee County, and those sources are not perpetual. In addition, it is conceivable that Manatee County may pre-blend the water it delivers to Sarasota County with water of lesser quality, so that the delivered water may exceed the total dissolved solids standard of 500 ppm for potable water. If thewater from Manatee County were reduced to that quality, the University wellfield supply, which currently exceeds standards itself, and which relies on blending with better quality Manatee County water to be potable, would also be removed as a source of potable water to Sarasota County. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 373.171, Florida Statutes, which requires the District to regulate the use of water by apportionment, limitation, or rotating uses, to obtain the most beneficial use of water resources and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the District analyzed the available water sources and determined that Sarasota County relies upon its 10 mgd supply from Manatee County and the 2 mgd supply from University wellfield to constitute 12 mgd usable water. The 5 mgd from Manatee County would be used only in an emergency situation, and the Sorrento wellfield would be abandoned. Future water demands must be predicted relying in great part upon an historic record of prior water use. Utilizing a statistical procedure called linear regression, a methodology accepted by the District, indicated a water demand figure for the period from 1992 to 1997 based upon six use points extending from 1985 to 1990. These use records reflected a low of 9.733 mgd and a high of 12.808 mgd, the former being in 1985 and the latter in 1990. In addition, the County estimated that its capital improvement program would add between 10 and 12 thousand customers who presently use private wells, whose water use would constitute approximately 2 mgd of additional demand. The County's program toacquire some 42 private franchises now serving customers would add an additional demand of 2 mgd. Taken together, these programs would add in approximately 1.8 mgd per year to the need assessment, and it would therefore appear that by 1997, the County's average daily demand, considering all new users, would be 17.84 mgd. The water to be drawn from the Carlton Reserve is not currently potable and will require some form of treatment to render it so. Sarasota County proposes to use the Electrodialysis Reversal process, (EDR), because, in the County's judgement, it is more efficient than others such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Whereas EDR is rated at up to 85% efficient, the others range between 50% to 75% efficient. In that regard, in order to determine the maximum amount of water to be drawn, providing a safety factor for a treatment plant operation that is not working up to peak capacity in computing the water needs, the EDR process was determined to be no more than 80% efficient. Factoring in that efficiency potential, when the 1997 average daily demand is subtracted from the County's projected water capacity, the withdrawal need in 1997 is determined to be 7.303 mgd. However, as a part of its permitting process, the County also calculated its peak month daily demand. This is a figure which represents the maximum amount permitted to be drawn on a daily basis during the peak demand period. This peak period was determined under Section b 3.2 of the District's Basis of Review by taking the 1989 daily flow and using a sliding 31 day calendar to determine the highest historical 31 day flow. Thisresulted in a peak month coefficient of 6.16 which was then multiplied by the 1997 average daily demand of 17.842 mgd which resulted in a peak month daily demand of 20.7 mgd. When existing water supplies are removed and the 80% EDR treatment process factor is applied, the amount of raw water needed from the wellfield in issue on a peak monthly basis would be 9.625 mgd. This peak monthly basis figure is considered because of the intermittent periods of low rainfall and high water demand within the County. Accepting the 1.8 gpd yearly increase; the peak factor of 1.16; and the assumed water supply capacity of 18.6 mgd; Sarasota County's need will exceed its available supplies by 1993. In fact, the County is already experiencing low water pressure in part of its service area during peak demand periods. County experts estimate that without the requested water from the Carlton Tract, Sarasota County can expect to experience dry periods as early as 1993 during the periods of peak water usage, generally between April and June. For the above reason, when the application and its supporting information was reviewed by Mr. Basso, the District hydrologist with extensive experience reviewing more than 300 water use application, he determined that the water supplies requested are necessary to meet the County's certain reasonable demand, and that this meets the criteria set out in Rule 40D - 2.301(1)(a), F.A.C. Turning to the issue of hydrologic and environmental impacts, the District's Basis For Review of Water Permit Applications provides for the use of a "water use model" inevaluating water needs and the appropriateness of a proposed withdrawal. In preparing its submittal to the District, Sarasota County performed certain tests and modeling to derive the statistical and scientific information used in support of its application. Specifically it used the USGS' MODFLOW model utilizing information obtained from the pump tests run on the wells in the pertinent areas. Consistent with the District's rule, the water data and aquifer drawdown were determined by simulated pumping. The tests run also provided the information on water quality in the aquifer and physical characteristics including transmissivity, storage coefficient, specific yield and leakance between aquifers. This data also helped in defining the hydrogeologic framework of the Carlton Reserve. The Carlton Reserve's hydrogeology listed in descending order from the surface, includes a surficial aquifer which varies in depth between 19 and 70 feet across the Reserve; a semi-confining clay unit separating it from the intermediate aquifer; the upper intermediate and lower intermediate aquifer which range in depth from 140 to 180 feet across the Reserve; another confining layer, and the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers. The hydrology and groundwater modeling expert who constructed the model used in Sarasota County's permit application concluded that the water table drawdown at the Reserve property boundary in the surficial aquifer would be less than .3 of a foot; less than .4 of a foot in the intermediate aquifer; and 2.9 feet in the Upper Florida aquifer. The water to be drawn consistentwith this instant permit, if approved, would come from the Upper Floridan aquifer on the Reserve. The County's experts were conservative in the assumptions used in the groundwater model. It was assumed there would be no lateral water flow into the model area and no recharge. In addition, the model called for all pumps to run simultaneously at a maximum drawdown of 12.65 mgd for 90 days rather than at the requested quantity of 9.625 mgd. Utilization of these assumptions provided a scenario wherein "severe" impacts would be encountered. Based on the testing and the modeling done, expert opinion was that there would be no quantity or quality changes that would adversely effect water resources including ground and surface water. This meets the criteria of Rule 40D-2.301. This opinion was concurred in the District's hydrology expert. Nonetheless, in its proposed approval, the District has imposed special permitting conditions which require the County to monitor, analyze, and report water quality and water table level information to the District on a monthly and annual basis. When it evaluates the information supplied by an applicant relating to ground water monitoring, the District is required to consider certain presumptions set forth in its Basis For Review. For example, the District presumes that if there is a drawdown of more than 1 foot in the surficial aquifer at a wetland, adverse environmental impacts will occur. In the instant case, the County model concluded that the actual drawdown in the surficial aquifer at the Carlton Reserve is less than .6 of onefoot and, therefore, there should be no adverse environmental impact resulting from the withdrawal. Nonetheless, the County has developed several plans designed to provide information on environmental impacts which will continuously monitor such parameters as rainfall and evaporation, wetlands hydroperiod changes and vegetative changes in the wetlands to detect any changes which might be attributed to the water pumping. These plans have been made special conditions to the water use permit, and in the opinion of the County's ecology and hydrology expert, would enable the County to adequately monitor and detect any pertinent changes to the pertinent factors concerned on the Carlton Reserve. If wetland changes are detected, a contingency plan will be in effect which will require an alteration of pumping schedules or other action to minimize any adverse impacts. The District expert in wetlands and wildlife habitat has opined that these measures, with which he is familiar, are adequate to insure that adverse impacts to the wetlands will not occur. This is consistent with the provisions of Rule 40D-2.301(1). As was stated previously, the water to be drawn pursuant to this permit will be drawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This water is not potable but is treatable and is the lowest quality water which can be economically used by the County. Water of a lower quality does exist in the Lower Florida aquifer, but it is not economically treatable, and, in addition, use of this Lower Floridan aquifer might cause vertical movement of the poorer quality water into the upper strata. For all practical purposes,then, the lowest quality water available to it will be used by the County and this is consistent with the District's basis for review. Expert testimony indicates that saline water will not be infused into the Upper Floridan aquifer. Salt water intrusion generally occurs when groundwater is brought to a level below sea level. Even at the point of maximum actual drawdown as a result of pumping on the Reserve, the fresh water level will remain at least 20 feet above sea level, and as a result of the difference in water level, no saline water intrusion into the fresh water supply will occur even though salt water intrusion can also occur as a result of upward vertical movement of lower quality water due to withdrawal. The District's hydrologist and reviewing official also concluded that because of the confining layer below the aquifer from which water will be withdrawn, there would not be any significant upward movement of lesser quality water. The District's basis of review also envisions an aquifer pollution if a proposed withdrawal would spread an identified contamination plume. Here no contamination has been identified in the area from which the water will be drawn, and therefore, contamination would not be spread. The Basis for Review also infers there will be adverse impact to off site land if there is a significant drawdown of surface water bodies or if damage to crops or other vegetation can be expected. Here, the water table drawdown at the boundary of the Carlton Reserve is anticipated at less than .3 of one foot and any drawdown further out from the Reserve can be expected tobe even less. As a result, no adverse impact to existing off site land useage is expected. With regard to Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), relating to an adverse impact on existing legal uses, the District presumes that no adverse impact will exist if the drawdown in the water table is no more than 2 feet at an affected well, or the potentiometric surface at the well is not lowered by more than 5 feet. Here, again applying the County's groundwater modeling demonstrates that the drawdown at its worst, in the Upper Floridan aquifer, would be no more than 2.9 feet at the Reserve boundary and much less at the Petitioners' wells. Both Mr Bishop's and Ms. Jones' wells are approximately 7.5 and 7 miles, respectively, from the closest well on the Reserve property. Ms. Jones' well is drilled into the intermediate aquifer which is above that which the County proposes to use and should not be impacted. Mr. Bishop draws water from the intermediate and surficial aquifers, both of which are above the Upper Florida aquifer identified for use here, and the groundwater modeling would suggest that his well would not be impacted either. Sarasota County's application contains reference to numerous proposals for water conservation measures which it intends to implement or has already implemented. It has adopted ordinances to enforce the District's watering restrictions and is currently implementing a block inverted use rate structure to promote conservation. It has developed programs for use in the schools outlining water conservation efforts and is developing programs topromote the increased use of treated waste water for golf course irrigation. The requirement for a water conservation plan such as is described and envisioned by the County is a condition of the water use permit proposed, and in addition, the County has adopted an Ordinance, (90-38) which modifies its building code to require installation of water conservation devices in new buildings erected in the County. It has developed proposals for conservation measures such as water auditing, meter testing, leak detection, system looping, and pressure reduction, and has selected the EDR process of water purification as the most efficient use of groundwater resources. Petitioner, Bishop, testified to his belief that approval of this permit and the resultant water withdrawal on the Carlton Reserve would necessitate an expansion of the boundaries of the District's Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area to a point where his property would be encompassed therein. In support of his position, Mr. Bishop offered a notice to the effect that new ground water withdrawals would not be permitted within a certain "most impacted area" within the caution area. There was, however, no independent evidence from hydrologists, geologists, or other conservationists, or individuals familiar with the water conservation process, to support Mr. Bishop's contention that either the boundaries would be expanded or that withdrawal of the proposed permitted amounts of water from the Carlton Reserve would cause the boundaries to be expanded. By the same token, Mr. Bishop's contention that theproposed withdrawal from the wells here in issue would adversely effect his ability to draw water from his existing well was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence tending to support or confirm his contention. He had no evidence tending to contradict the County's and District's experts, all of whom indicated there would be no adverse impact on the environment or water resources as a result of the instant permit. Similarly, neither Petitioner offered any evidence of a demonstrative nature that would draw any connection between the proposed permitted withdrawals and potential salt water intrusion and water level drawdown in their wells. The County introduced construction permits issued by its own health department covering 8 of the 12 wells which have been drilled on the Carlton Reserve as test wells. These wells were clearly sunk pursuant to an agreement between the District and the County's public health unit which delegates authority for water well construction permitting to the County. Taken together the documentation indicates that these 12 wells on the Reserve were installed and permitted pursuant to and consistent with appropriate permitting processes, and the testimony of Mr. Bassarab, the County's expert who oversaw the installation of the wells, reflects they are appropriately grouted and sealed. Therefore, there will be no mixing of lower quality water from the lower portion of the Floridan aquifer with the better quality water from the upper portion of that aquifer. The County's evidence clearly refutes the allegation by Mr. Bishop that the 12 test wells currently existingon the Carlton Reserve were neither permitted nor inspected as required by the District. County Commissioner Hill, who testified on behalf of the Petitioners, indicated that the wells applied for here are unnecessary and an inappropriate expenditure of County funds. She claimed there are other valid sources of water available to the County, including that extracted from excavated shell pits and seawater from the Gulf of Mexico which could be treated and desalinated. The Commissioner's comments as to alternate sources are not specifically rebutted. However, she is neither an expert in hydrology or hydrogeology, and her testimony is not persuasive. While other water sources may exist, the better evidence clearly indicates that those sources are not sufficient to meet the County's needs or are otherwise inappropriate for use by the County in sufficient quantity to satisfy those needs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that consumptive water use permit No. 208836.00, providing for authorized quantities as outlined in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein, be issued to Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONERS: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 8. Resolved against the Petitioners on the basis information presented by Respondents. 9.- 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 23. Accepted. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted. & 27. Noted as citation of authority. Rejected. & 30. Accepted as restatements of evidence but not as Findings of Fact. 31. Irrelevant. 32. Rejected 33. & 34. Not a error is, in fact, it is such. 35. - 38. Irrelevant. 39. - 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45. Rejected. 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. & 48. Rejected as a mere citation of testimony. 49. Not understandable. Not a Finding of Fact. 50. Accepted. 51. Evidence is acceptable. 52. Not sufficiently specific to rule upon. 53. Not proven. 54. Not specific. 55. & 56. Rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein, - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted - not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. Not correct as stated. Sarasota County will not be withdrawing saline water from the upper Floridan aquifer. The remaining discussion is accepted. Accepted and utilized. & 54. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60. Accepted. 61 - 63. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 66. Not Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr. 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Joan Jones 719 East Baffin Road Venice, Florida 34293 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman, Herb, Causey & Dooley 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34237 Cathy Sellers, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 215 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue 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
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive water use permit for six wells at the following locations: LATITUDE LONGITUDE 28 degrees 20' 50" 82 degrees 41' 36" (hereinafter referred to as Garden Terrace No.1) 28 degrees 20' 50" 82 degrees 41' 35" (hereinafter referred to as Garden Terrace No.2) 28 degrees 20' 55" 82 degrees 39' 11" (hereinafter referred to as Parkwood Acres No.1) 28 degrees 21' 20" 82 degrees 39' 11" (hereinafter referred to as Parkwood Acres No.2) 28 degrees 21' 49" 82 degrees 38' 56" (hereinafter referred to as New Well No.1) 28 degrees 21' 50" 82 degrees 38' 56" (hereinafter referred to as New Well No.2) Although included in the application, it appears from the record of this proceeding that Garden Terrace No. 1 is to be abandoned by applicant upon completion of its new facilities and therefore is not intended for inclusion in any consumptive water use permit issued pursuant hereto. Further, it appears from the records that the applicant intends to use Garden Terrace No. 2 as an emergency standby supply well only and therefore its average daily withdrawal as reflected on the application is not intended to be included in a consumptive water use permit issued pursuant hereto. Therefore, with those amendments the application seeks, from a total of five wells, a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,501,000 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 650,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public water supply and appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use consistent with the public interest and not interfering with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application. Further, according to testimony of the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District it does not appear that any of the matters set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.S., exist so as to require the denial of this permit. The staff recommendation is that this permit be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1.50 million gallons per day and an average daily withdrawal of .650 million gallons per day. The staff recommendations are subject to the following conditions: That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit with the exception of those wells which are currently gaged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter. Said pumpage shall be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15, for each preceding calendar quarter. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15 and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That to promote good water management and avoid salt water intrusion that the water be withdrawn at an average of .217 million gallons per day from each of the three following wells: Parkwood Acres Well No. 1, Parkwood Acres Well No. 2, and New Well No. 1. New Well No. 2 shall be operated only to meet peak demand. That Garden Terrace Well No. 2 be used only as an emergency standby well. The applicant entered no objections to the conditions set forth above nor were there any objections from members of the public to the issuance of this consumptive water use permit.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be issued for the five subject wells for the withdrawal of 1.30 mgd maximum daily withdrawal and .65 mgd, average daily withdrawal subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 4 above. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Delmar Water Corporation 731 West Main Street New Port Richey, Florida 33552
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether proposed Water Use Permits Nos. 20012236.000 (the Potable Water Permit) and 20012239.000 (the Irrigation Permit) and proposed Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001 (the ERP) should be issued by the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The individual Petitioners, Farnsworth, Roop, and Varnum are all Florida citizens and residents of Sumter County. None of the individual Petitioners offered any evidence relating to direct impacts that the ERP would have on their property. With respect to the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits, anecdotal testimony was presented by Petitioners and Wing and Weir relating to well failures and sinkholes in the area. Two Petitioners, Roop and Varnum, live in close proximity to the property encompassed by the three permits. Petitioner Farnsworth’s property is approximately three and a half miles from the project boundary. Wing and Weir live approximately four and a half to five and 18 miles from the project site, respectively. SCAID is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that has approximately 130 members. Farnsworth, the president of SCAID, identified only Roop and Varnum as members who will be directly affected by the activities to be authorized by the permits. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries. The Utility and the Authority are limited liability companies, of which the Villages Inc. is the managing partner. The Villages Inc. is a Florida corporation. The Utility, which will serve as a provider of potable water, is regulated by the Public Service Commission, while the Authority which will provide irrigation water, is not. The Villages Inc., Development The Villages Inc. is a phased, mixed use, retirement community, which is located at the intersecting borders of Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. Development has been on going since at least 1983, with a current planning horizon of the year 2019. Currently, there are 15,362 constructed dwelling units in the built-out portion of the Villages Inc. that are located in Lake County and the extreme northeast corner of Sumter County. The portion located in Marion County is 60 percent complete, with 750 homes completed and another 600 under construction. Approximately another 22,000 residences are planned for development in Sumter County by the year 2012, with an additional 10,200 by the year 2019. However, the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits are only for a six-year duration, and the ERP has a duration of only six years. None of the permits authorize development activities beyond that time frame. Generally speaking, the three permits at issue include an area owned by the Villages Inc. that lies in northeast Sumter County South of County Road 466 and North of County Road 466A. However, it is not projected that this entire area will be built-out during the terms of three proposed permits. Area Hydrology and Topography In the area of the Villages Inc., there is a layer of approximately five to ten feet of sand at the land surface, which is underlain by ten to 70 feet of a clayey sand. Both of these constitute the surficial aquifer and are extremely leaky, allowing water to percolate easily through to a lower layer. Except in the vicinity of Lake Miona, there is no water in the surficial aquifer except after rainfall events. The clayey sand layer is underlain by the Upper Floridan, a limestone unit. The top of this limestone layer ("the top of the rock") occurs at fluctuating depths of between 30 and 70 feet. At approximately 350 to 400 feet below the land surface, there begins a transition to a denser unit that serves as a confining layer between the Upper Floridan production zone and the Lower Floridan production zone. This confining layer, which was confirmed by drilling at three locations in the Villages Inc. is approximately 150 feet thick in the area of the Villages Inc. Another transition, this time to a less dense formation, begins at approximately 550 to 600 feet, which is considered the top of the Lower Floridan production zone. While testing conducted on the project site indicated almost no leakage between the Upper and Lower Floridan production zones, it is generally known by experts that there is some exchange of water between the two layers. Both the Upper and the Lower Floridan contain water that meets potable water standards and both are considered water production zones. The water quality of the two zones is not significantly different. The project area is prone to karst activity, that is, the formation of sinkholes. Sinkholes are formed as a result of the collapse of the overburden above subsurface cavities which have been formed through a very gradual dissolution of limestone, thus resulting in a "sink" at the land surface. Surface water bodies in the area include Lake Miona, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, and Dry Prairie, as well as several other small wetlands. The Potable Water and Irrigation Permits The potable water permit is for the withdrawal from the Upper Floridan Aquifer of 1.164 million gallons of water per day (MGD), on an annual average, for potable use in residences and both commercial and recreational establishments. It also limits the maximum withdrawal during peak months to 2.909 MGD. The Irrigation Permit is for the withdrawal from the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 2.850 MGD, on an annual average, for use in irrigation. The peak month usage rate permissible under the proposed permit would be 9.090 MGD. Water withdrawal under the Irrigation Permit will be used for the irrigation of residential lawns, common areas, commercial landscaping, and golf courses. Modeling of Drawdowns In assessing the impacts of proposed water withdrawals from an aquifer, District personnel considered effects on the aquifers and on-surface water features in the area. Computer- generated models of the predicted effects of the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits withdrawals provided one of the principal bases for this assessment. The primary geologist assigned to review the permit applications reviewed two of the models submitted by the Utility and the Authority (jointly the WUP Applicants) and ran one personal model of her own in order to predict the effects of the proposed withdrawals on the aquifers, as well as on any wetlands and other surface water bodies. In particular, the models predict both the vertical and horizontal extent to which the withdrawals may lower the level of water within the aquifers and in-surface waters under various conditions. One of the models submitted by the WUP Applicants predicted drawdowns during a 90-day period of no rainfall while the other predicted the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits, considered cumulatively with the effects of withdrawals from the already-existing Villages' development in Sumter, Marion, and Lake Counties. The District’s geologist modeled the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits and included the cumulative effects of all of the current Villages' withdrawals in Sumter County. All of these models included the combined effects of both the proposed Potable Water and the Irrigation Permits. Based upon these models, it is concluded that there will be no significant drawdowns as a result of the withdrawals authorized by the proposed water use permits. Specifically, the only predicted drawdown in the surficial aquifer (0.25 feet of drawdown) is in an area where there are no natural surface water features. Drawdown in the Upper Floridan is predicted at between 0.1 and 0.2 feet, while the drawdown in the Lower Floridan is predicted at a maximum of 1.5 feet. These minor drawdowns are not expected to cause any adverse impacts. Transmissivity is the rate at which water moves horizontally through the aquifer. In areas with high transmissivity, the results of water withdrawals from an aquifer will generally be low in magnitude, but broad in lateral extent. Water withdrawals from areas of low transmissivity will result in cones of depression that are more limited in lateral extent, but steeper vertically. The use of too high a transmissivity rate in a model, would overpredict the horizontal distance of the drawdowns caused by withdrawals, but would underpredict the vertical drawdown in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal. Conversely, use of too low a transmissivity would over-predict the effects in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal but underpredict the lateral extent of the drawdown. The WUP Applicants’ models used a transmissivity value for the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 100,000 feet squared per day ("ft.2/d'). The WUP Applicants’ consultant derived the transmissivity values from a regional model prepared by the University of Florida. The regional model uses a transmissivity value for the entire region of 200,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan. While that transmissivity is appropriate for assessing large-scale impacts, on a more localized level, the transmissivity of the aquifer may be lower. Therefore, the WUP Applicants’ consultant met with District representatives and agreed to use a value half that used in the University of Florida model. A similar approach was used for the transmissivity value used in modeling effects in the Upper Floridan. Notably, specific transmissivity values recorded in four wells in the Villages Inc. area were not used because two of these wells were only cased to a depth of just over 250 feet, with an open hole below that to a depth of 590 feet. Thus, the transmissivity measured in these wells reflect conditions in the confining layer at the immediate location of the wells - not the transmissivity of the Lower Floridan production zone. Further, site-specific information on transmissivity, measured during pump tests at individual wells, does not correlate well to the transmissivity of the aquifer, even at short distances from the well. Transmissivities measured at individual wells are used to determine the depth at which the pump should be set in the well, not to determine the transmissivity of the aquifer. Thus, the use of transmissivities derived from the regional model, but adjusted to be conservative, is entirely appropriate. Moreover, using a transmissivity in her modeling of the project impacts of 27,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan Aquifer, the district geologist’s model predicted no adverse impacts. Leakance is the measure of the resistance of movement vertically through confining units of the aquifer. The leakance value used by the District for the confining layer between the Upper and Lower Floridan was taken from the University of Florida model. Tests conducted on the site actually measured even lower leakance values. Thus, the evidence establishes that the leakance value used in the WUP Applicants’ and the District’s modeling for the Floridan confining layer was reasonable and appropriate. Competent, substantial evidence also establishes that the leakance value used for Lake Miona was reasonable. The WUP Applicants submitted to the District substantial data, gathered over several years, reflecting the balance of water flowing into Lake Miona and the lake’s levels in relation to the potentiometric surface. This documentation verified the leakance value used for Lake Miona in the modeling. Finally, the District modeling used appropriate boundary condition parameters. The District modeling used what is known as the "constant head" boundary and assumes the existence of water generated off-site at the boundaries. Such a boundary simulates the discharge of the aquifer at a certain level. The use of constant head boundaries is an accepted practice. The modeling conducted on behalf of the District and the Applicants provides a reasonable assurances that the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits will not cause adverse water quality or quantity changes to surface or groundwater resources, will not cause adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, and will not cause pollution of the aquifer. Furthermore, because the predicted drawdowns are so insignificant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the withdrawals will not adversely impact existing off-site land uses or existing legal withdrawals. The modeling also provides reasonable assurances that the withdrawals will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. Moreover, monitoring requirements included in the proposed Potable Water and Irrigation Permits provide additional reasonable assurance that – should the withdrawal effects exceed those predicted by the modeling – such effects are identified and necessary steps are taken to mitigate for any potential impacts. The District has reserved the right to modify or revoke all or portions of the water use permits under certain circumstances. Specifically, the proposed Potable Water Permit requires a monitoring plan that includes the following pertinent provisions: There shall be no less than three control wetland and ten onsite wetland monitoring sites; A baseline monitoring report, outlining the current wetland conditions; * * * A statement indicating that an analysis of the water level records for area lakes, including Miona Lake, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, Lake Deaton and Lake Griffin, will be included in the annual report; A statement indicating that an analysis of the spring flow records for Gum Spring, Silver Spring, and Fenney Spring, will be included in the annual report; * * * Wildlife analyses for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods to determine success of the mitigation; A mitigation plan for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods and thresholds to determine success of the mitigation; An annual report of an analysis of the monitoring data . . . . Similar provisions are included in the proposed irrigation permit. The WUP Applicants, in conjunction with the District, have developed sites and methodologies for this monitoring. Reasonable Demand The water to be withdrawn under the proposed Potable Water Permit will serve 10,783 people. This total results from the simple multiplication of the number of residences to be built during the next six years (5,675) by the average number of residents per household (1.9). Those numbers are based upon historical absorption rates within the Villages Inc. development since 1983, an absorption rate that doubles approximately every five years. The Utility proposed a per capita use rate of 108 gallons per day for potable use only. District personnel independently verified that per capita rate, based upon current usage in the existing portions of the Villages Inc. and determined that the rate was reasonable. Based upon the population projections and the per capita rate, the District determined that there is a reasonable demand for the withdrawal of the amount of water, for potable purposes, that is reflected in the Potable Water Permit. The Utility has provided reasonable assurance regarding the Utility’s satisfaction of this permitting criterion. As to the irrigation permit, the Villages Inc. plans, within the next six years, to complete the construction of 1,911 acres of property that will require irrigation. The amount of water originally requested by the Authority for irrigation withdrawals was reduced during the course of the application process at the request of the District. The District determined the reasonable amount of irrigation water needed through the application of AGMOD, a computer model that predicts the irrigation needs of various vegetative covers. Since the Authority intends to utilize treated wastewater effluent as another source of irrigation water, the District reduced the amount of water that it would permit to be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan for irrigation. The District, thus, determined that the Authority would need 1.59 MGD annual average for recreational and aesthetic area irrigation and 1.26 MGD annual average for residential lawn irrigation, for a total of 2.85 MGD. The Villages Inc. also plans to accumulate stormwater in lined ponds for irrigation use. However, unlike its treatment of wastewater effluent, the District did not deduct accumulated stormwater from the amount of water deemed necessary for irrigation. This approach was adopted due to the inability to predict short-term rainfall amounts. The uncontroverted evidence of record establishes reasonable assurances that there is a reasonable demand for the amount of water to be withdrawn under the proposed irrigation permit. Conservation and Reuse Measures Both the Utility and the Authority applications included proposed measures for the conservation and reuse of water. The conservation plan submitted in conjunction with the irrigation permit application provides for control valves to regulate both the pressure and timing of irrigation by residential users; contractual restrictions on water use by commercial users; xeriscaping; and an irrigation control system for golf course irrigation that is designed to maximize the efficient use of water. In addition, in the proposed permits, the District requires the Utility and the Authority to expand upon these conservation measures through such measures as educational efforts, inclined block rate structures, and annual reporting to assess the success of conservation measures. The Authority also committed to reduce its dependence on groundwater withdrawals through the reuse of wastewater effluent, both from the on-site wastewater treatment facility and through contract with the City of Wildwood. Reasonable assurances have been provided that conservation measures have been incorporated and that, to the maximum extent practicable, reuse measures have been incorporated. Use of Lowest Available Quality of Water In addition to the reuse of treated wastewater effluent, the Authority intends to minimize its dependence on groundwater withdrawals for irrigation use through the reuse of stormwater accumulated in lined ponds. Thirty-one of the lined stormwater retention ponds to be constructed by the Villages Inc. are designed as a component of the irrigation system on-site. Ponds will be grouped with the individual ponds within each group linked through underground piping. There will be an electronically controlled valve in the stormwater pond at the end of the pipe that will be used to draw out water for irrigation purposes. These lined stormwater ponds serve several purposes. However, the design feature that is pertinent to the reuse of stormwater for irrigation is the inclusion of additional storage capacity below the top of the pond liner. No groundwater will be withdrawn for irrigation purposes unless the level of stormwater in these lined ponds drops below a designed minimum irrigation level. Groundwater pumped into these ponds will then be pumped out for irrigation. Thus, the use of groundwater for irrigation is minimized. The Authority has met its burden of proving that it will use the lowest quality of water available. With respect to the potable permit, the evidence establishes that there are only minor differences between the water quality in the Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan in this area. The Upper Floridan is a reasonable source for potable supply in this area. Thus, reasonable assurances have been provided by the Utility that it will utilize the lowest water quality that it has the ability to use for potable purposes. Waste of Water In regard to concerns that the design of the Villages Inc.'s stormwater/irrigation system will result in wasteful losses of water due to evaporation from the surface of the lined ponds, it must be noted that there are no artesian wells relating to this project and nothing in the record to suggest that the groundwater withdrawals by either the Utility or the Authority will cause excess water to run into the surface water system. Additionally, the evidence establishes that, to the extent groundwater will be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan and pumped into lined stormwater ponds, such augmentation is not for an aesthetic purpose. Instead, the groundwater added to those ponds will be utilized as an integral part of the irrigation system and will be limited in quantity to the amount necessary for immediate irrigation needs. Finally, the water to be withdrawn will be put to beneficial potable and irrigation uses, rather than wasteful purposes. Under current regulation, water lost from lined stormwater ponds through evaporation is not considered as waste. Thus, the Authority and the Utility have provided reasonable assurances that their withdrawals of groundwater will not result in waste. The ERP The stormwater management system proposed by the Villages Inc. will eventually serve 5,016 acres on which residential, commercial, golf course, and other recreational development will ultimately be constructed. However, the proposed permit currently at issue is preliminary in nature and will only authorize the construction of stormwater ponds, earthworks relating to the construction of compensating flood storage, and wetland mitigation. Water Quality Impacts The stormwater management system will include eight shallow treatment ponds that will be adjacent to Lake Miona and Black Lake and 45 lined retention ponds. Thirty-one of these lined ponds will serve as part of the irrigation system for a portion of the Villages Inc.'s development. All of these ponds provide water quality treatment. The unlined ponds will retain the first one inch of stormwater and then overflow into the lakes. The ponds provide water quality treatment of such water before it is discharged into the lakes. The water quality treatment provided by these ponds provides reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely impact the water quality of receiving waters. While they do not discharge directly to surface receiving waters, the lined retention ponds do provide protection against adverse water quality impacts on groundwater. There will be some percolation from these ponds, from the sides at heights above the top of the liner. However, the liners will prevent the discharge of pollutants through the highly permeable surface strata into the groundwater. The Villages Inc. designed the system in this manner in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Environmental Protection during the DRI process regarding potential pollutant loading of the aquifer at the retention pond sites. Furthermore, by distributing the accumulated stormwater - through the irrigation system - over a wider expanse of vegetated land surface, a greater degree of water quality treatment will be achieved than if the stormwater were simply permitted to percolate directly through the pond bottom. There is no reasonable expectation that pollutants will be discharged into the aquifer from the lined ponds. If dry ponds were used, there would be an accumulation of pollutants in the pond bottom. These measures provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impact on the quality of receiving waters. Water Quantity Impacts With regard to the use of lined retention ponds, as part of the Villages Inc.’s stormwater system and the impact of such ponds on water quantity, the evaporative losses from lined ponds as opposed to unlined ponds is a differential of approximately one (1) inch of net recharge. The acreage of the lined ponds - even measured at the very top of the pond banks - is only 445 acres. That differential, in terms of a gross water balance, is not significant, in view of the other benefits provided by the lined ponds. As part of the project, wetlands will be created and expanded and other water bodies will be created. After rainfalls, these unlined ponds will be filled with water and will lose as much water through evaporation as would any other water body. The design proposed by the Villages Inc., however, will distribute the accumulated stormwater across the project site through the irrigation of vegetated areas. The documentation submitted by the Villages Inc. establishes that the ERP will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. The Villages Inc. has carried its burden as to this permitting criterion. Flooding, Surface Water Conveyance, and Storage Impacts Parts of the project are located in areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) as 100-year flood zones. Specifically, these areas are located along Lake Miona, Black Lake, between Black Lake and Cherry Lake, and at some locations south of Black Lake. Under the District’s rules, compensation must be provided for any loss of flood zone in filled areas by the excavation of other areas. The District has determined, based upon the documentation provided with the Villages Inc.’s application, work on the site will encroach on 871.37 acre feet of the FEMA 100-year flood zone. However, 1,051.70 acre feet of compensating flood zone is being created. The Villages Inc. proposes to mitigate for the loss of flood zone primarily in the areas of Dry Prairie and Cherry Lake. At present, Cherry Lake is the location of a peat mining operation authorized by DEP permit. Mining has occurred at that site since the early 1980s. The flood zone mitigation proposed by the Villages Inc. provides reasonable assurance that it will sufficiently compensate for any loss of flood basin storage. The Villages Inc.'s project provides reasonable assurance that it will neither adversely affect surface water storage or conveyance capabilities, surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows nor cause adverse flooding. Each of the 45 retention ponds to be constructed on-site will include sufficient capacity, above the top of the pond liner, to hold a 100-year/24-hour storm event. This includes stormwater drainage from off-site. In addition, these ponds are designed to have an extra one foot of freeboard above that needed for the 100-year/24-hour storm, thus providing approximately an additional 100 acres of flood storage beyond that which will be lost through construction on-site. Furthermore, the Villages Inc. has proposed an emergency flood plan. In the event of a severe flood event, excess water will be pumped from Dry Prairie, Cherry Lake, and Lake Miona and delivered to the retention ponds and to certain golf course fairways located such that habitable living spaces would not be endangered. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation There are 601 acres of wetlands and surface waters of various kinds in the Villages Inc.’s project area. Forty-one acres of wetlands will be impacted by the work that is authorized under the ERP. Each of these impacted wetlands, along with the extent of the impact, is listed in the ERP. The impacts include both fill and excavation and all will be permanent. When assessing wetland impacts and proposed mitigation for those impacts, the District seeks to ensure that the activities proposed will not result in a net loss of wetland functionality. The object is to ensure that the end result will function at least as well as did the wetlands in their pre-impact condition. Functional value is judged, at least in part, by the long term viability of the wetland. While small, isolated wetlands are not completely without value, large wetland ecosystems – which are less susceptible to surrounding development – generally have greater long-term habitat value. The District’s policy is that an applicant need not provide any mitigation for the loss of habitat in wetlands of less than 0.5 acre, except under certain limited circumstances, including where the wetland is utilized by threatened or endangered species. Some wetlands that will be impacted by the Villages Inc.’s project are of high functional value and some are not as good. The Villages Inc. proposes a variety of types of mitigation for the wetlands impacts that will result from its project, all of which are summarized in the ERP. In all, 331.55 acres of mitigation are proposed by the Villages Inc. First, the District proposes to create new wetlands. Approximately 11 acres of this new wetland will consist of a marsh, which is to be created east of Cherry Lake. Second, it proposes to undertake substantial enhancement of Dry Prairie, a 126-acre wetland. Currently – and since at least the early nineties – Dry Prairie received discharge water from the peat mining operation at Cherry Lake. Without intervention, when the mining operations stop, Dry Prairie would naturally become drier than it has been for several years and would lose some of the habitat function that it has been providing. The Villages Inc.’s proposed enhancement is designed to match the current hydroperiods of Dry Prairie, thus ensuring its continued habitat value. Third, the Villages Inc. has proposed to enhance upland buffers around wetlands and surface waters by planting natural vegetation, thus providing a natural barrier. Placement of these buffers in conservation easements does not provide the Villages Inc. with mitigation credit, since a 25-foot buffer is required anyway. However, the District determined that the enhancement of these areas provided functional value to the wetlands and surface waters that would not be served by the easements alone. Fourth, the Villages Inc. will place a conservation easement over certain areas, including a 1500-foot radius preserve required by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) around an identified eagles’ nest. These areas will also be used for the relocation of gopher tortoises and, if any are subsequently located, of gopher frogs. While the Villages Inc. is also performing some enhancement of this area, it will receive no mitigation credit for such enhancement – which was required to meet FWCC requirements. However, since the conservation easement will remain in effect in perpetuity, regardless of whether the eagles continue to use the nest, the easement ensures the continued, viability of the area’s wetlands and provides threatened and endangered species habitat. In order to provide additional assurances that these mitigation efforts will be successful, the District has included a condition in the proposed permit establishing wetland mitigation success criteria for the various types of proposed mitigation. If these success criteria are not achieved, additional mitigation must be provided. With the above described mitigation, the activities authorized under the ERP will not adversely impact the functional value of wetlands and other surface waters to fish or wildlife. The Villages Inc. has met its burden of providing reasonable assurances relating to this permit criterion. Capability of Performing Effectively The Villages Inc. has also provided reasonable assurances that the stormwater management system proposed is capable of functioning as designed. The retention ponds proposed are generally of a standard-type design and will not require complicated maintenance procedures. In its assessment of the functional capability of the system, the District did not concern itself with the amount of stormwater that the system might contribute for irrigation purposes. Rather, it focused its consideration on the stormwater management functions of the system. The question of the effectiveness of the system for irrigation purposes is not relevant to the determination of whether the Villages Inc. has met the criteria for permit issuance. Consequently, the record establishes that the documentation provided by the Villages Inc. contains reasonable assurances that the stormwater system will function effectively and as proposed. Operation Entity The Villages Inc. has created Community Development District No. 5 (CDD No. 5), which will serve as the entity responsible for the construction and maintenance of the stormwater system. CDD No. 5 will finance the construction through special revenue assessment bonds and will finance maintenance through the annual assessments. Similar community development districts were established to be responsible for earlier phases of the Villages Inc. The ERP includes a specific condition that, prior to any wetlands impacts, the Villages Inc. will either have to provide the District with documentation of the creation of a community development district or present the District with a performance bond in the amount of $1,698,696.00. Since the undisputed testimony at hearing was that CDD No. 5 has, in fact, now been created, there are reasonable assurances of financial responsibility. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Villages Inc.’s application also provides accurate and reliable information sufficient to establish that there are reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater system will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands or other surface waters or adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The system is designed in a manner that will meet water treatment criteria and there will be no secondary water quality impacts. Further, the use of buffers will prevent secondary impacts to wetlands and wetland habitats and there will be no secondary impacts to archeological or historical resources. In this instance, the stormwater system proposed by the Villages Inc. will function in a manner that replaces any water quantity or water quality functions lost by construction of the system. In its assessment of the possible cumulative impacts of the system, the District considered areas beyond the bounds of the current project, including the area to the south that is currently being reviewed under the DRI process as a substantial deviation. The District’s environmental scientist, Leonard Bartos, also reviewed that portion of the substantial deviation north of County Road 466A, in order to determine the types of wetlands present there. Furthermore, the District is one of the review agencies that comments on DRI and substantial deviation applications. When such an application is received by the District’s planning division, it is routed to the regulatory division for review. The District includes its knowledge of the DRIs in its determination that there are no cumulative impacts. Reasonable assurances have been provided as to these permitting criteria. Public Interest Balancing Test Because the proposed stormwater system will be located in, on, and over certain wetlands, the Villages Inc. must provide reasonable assurances that the system will not be contrary to the public interest. This assessment of this permitting criteria requires that the District balance seven factors. While the effects of the proposed activity will be permanent, the Villages Inc. has provided reasonable assurances that it will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare; on fishing or recreational values; on the flow of water; on environmental resources, including fish and wildlife and surface water resources; or on off-site properties. Furthermore, the District has carefully assessed the current functions being provided by the affected wetland areas. With respect to historical or archeological resources, the Villages Inc. has received letters from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, stating that there are no significant historical or archeological resources on the project site that is the subject of this permit proceeding. Thus, the evidence establishes reasonable assurances that the Villages Inc.'s stormwater system will not be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the District and Applicant presented uncontroverted evidence that the proposed project will not adversely impact a work of the District, and that there are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing Water Use Permit Nos. 20012236.000 and 20012239.000 and Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001, in accordance with the District’s proposed agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Seacoast Utility Authority's challenge to the South Florida Water Management District's proposed issuance of a water use permit to PGA National Golf Club and Sports Center, Ltd. in a critical water supply area should be upheld. As discussed below, the parties have stipulated that, in deciding to issue the permit, the South Florida Water Management District has not evaluated or considered whether the use of reclaimed water was either economically, environmentally or technically infeasible.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Seacoast is a publicly owned water and sewer utility which operates a wastewater treatment facility in Palm Beach County, Florida. Seacoast's service area is bounded on the south by Riviera Beach and on the north by the Town of Jupiter. Seacoast operates four treatment plants: two water plants and two wastewater plants. Seacoast's regional wastewater facility currently generates approximately six (6) million gallons per day ("MGD") of reclaimed water and is permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") as an eight (8) MGD wastewater treatment plant. As discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, the Florida Legislature and DEP have sought to encourage the reuse of reclaimed water. This policy is one of the many sometimes competing goals that are supposed to be taken into account in the water use permitting process. Until a few years ago, the treated effluent from one of Seacoast's wastewater plants was directly discharged to nearby surfacewater. During the last four years, Seacoast installed a pumping station and five miles worth of transmission lines to deliver all of its treated effluent to its regional wastewater facility. Seacoast claims that these efforts were prompted by its interpretation of changing regulations and a perceived regulatory preference for reuse of water.1 Although Seacoast claims that there has been a change in regulatory emphasis in favor of reuse of reclaimed water, Seacoast is not under a mandate from any court or agency to sell or utilize any specific amount of reclaimed water. It does appear that a deep injection well used by Seacoast for disposal of wastewater is not or was not operating as designed. Seacoast was apparently obligated to construct reclaimed water facilities at its wastewater treatment plant as part of its permit from DEP for the injection well. There was no requirement that the reclaimed water be sold or otherwise utilized. The intended primary disposal for Seacoast's reclaimed water is reuse.2 Seacoast's wastewater treatment plant provides irrigation quality reclaimed water. Seacoast tries to sell the reclaimed water for irrigation use in an effort to recoup the costs incurred in constructing the facilities necessary to reclaim the water. Backup disposal is achieved through injection down a 3300 feet deep injection well into the boulder zone. Once the reclaimed water is injected down the well, it is unavailable for reuse. The evidence suggests that there are other possible utilizations available for Seacoast's reclaimed water including sale to another utility and/or backup recharge to preserve wetlands during periods of high pumpage. For example, Seacoast is apparently in the process of applying for the necessary permits to utilize a portion of its reclaimed water to prevent harm to wetlands adjacent to its Hood Road Well Field by constructing an hydraulic barrier. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, only approximately 1.2 MGD of the reclaimed water generated by Seacoast was being reused. The remaining approximately 5 MGD was disposed of through the injection well. PGA owns and operates three (3) golf courses in Palm Beach County within Seacoast's service area. PGA's golf courses are located within an area that has been designated by the District as a Critical Water Supply Problem Area. Critical Water Supply Problems Areas are geographical regions where the available water supply due to the potential for saltwater intrusion, wetland impacts, or impacts to existing legal uses, is predicted not to meet water demands that are projected during the next 20 years. See, Chapter 40E-23, Florida Administrative Code. The use of reclaimed water is not mandated in such areas. However, the District's Rules seek to insure the optimal utilization of alternative sources of water in such areas to minimize the potential harm to water resources. It is not clear from the evidence presented in this case when PGA first obtained the Permit from the District for golf course irrigation. The Permit allows PGA to use the groundwater table as the source of water for its irrigation. Before its expiration, PGA timely sought renewal of the Permit. On April 12, 1994, the District staff recommended renewal of PGA's Permit. The staff recommendation would allow PGA to continue using the groundwater table as the source of its water. The recommendation did not contain a requirement for PGA to use any reclaimed water as part of its golf course irrigation system. Seacoast became aware of PGA's application to renew its Permit through a routine review of all water use permit applications made to the District by "potential reclaimed water users in [its] service area." Seacoast filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the District staff's recommendation to renew PGA's Permit. In its Petition, Seacoast alleged that its substantial interests would be affected by the renewal of the Permit because Seacoast's ability to achieve the State of Florida's goals of conservation and environmental protection depends upon PGA, and other similar country clubs, being required to consume reclaimed water. Seacoast contends that the staff recommendation immediately eliminates a major potential consumer of Seacoast's reclaimed water which purportedly impairs Seacoast's ability to meet state objectives for reuse of reclaimed water and results in the undesirable continued disposal of reclaimed water via deep well injection. In connection with its challenge to the proposed renewal of PGA's Permit, Seacoast has stipulated that PGA's proposed withdrawals from the groundwater table would not cause harm to the water resources of the District. Seacoast also admits that it has never evaluated whether it would be environmentally injured by PGA's withdrawals from the groundwater table and/or whether the proposed use by PGA is wasteful. The District does not currently have any goals for the utilization of reclaimed water on a regional basis. Instead, the District oversight of the utilization of reclaimed water is done on a permit by permit basis. As a general policy, the District will not accept a water use permit application in an area of critical water shortage unless a reuse feasibility determination is included. The District's rules do not currently contain any guidelines as to how the determination of feasibility is to be made, nor are there any criteria for reviewing an applicant's determination of feasibility. As discussed below, the District does not even consider the applicant's reuse feasibility determination unless the proposed withdrawal is projected to result in harm to the resources of the District. Even when harm to a resource is projected, the District accepts an applicant's feasibility determination regarding the use of reclaimed water without question or analysis. For the other consumptive use criteria set forth in Rule 40E-2.301, the District independently evaluates the applicant's conclusions to confirm that they are reasonable. In other words, the District treats reclaimed water as an alternative source of water in the event that an applicant's proposed water use is projected to cause harm to the water resources of the District. If no harm is expected to occur to water resources as a result of a proposed use, the District does not review the applicant's determination of whether or not to use reclaimed water. If harm is projected, the applicant is required to look at alternatives like water conservation or utilization of water sources other than those proposed (such as reclaimed water). The applicant is free to select any alternative that mitigates the harm. Thus, even in a Critical Water Supply Area, an applicant can mitigate concerns about harm to the resource without utilizing reclaimed water. In sum, under the District's current procedures, the use of reclaimed water is never required. It is simply one alternative an applicant can utilize to offset or mitigate projected harm to water resources (such as saltwater intrusion, contamination, wetland drawdowns or existing legal use impacts) from a proposed withdrawal. Even when the District staff concludes that an applicant's proposed use will result in harm to water resources, the staff does not critically review the applicant's determination of whether the use of reclaimed water is economically, environmentally, or technically infeasible. With respect to PGA's Permit, the District staff concluded that no harm to the resource was predicted as a result of PGA's proposed use. Thus, PGA's determination not to use reclaimed water was not evaluated or even considered. The District explains that its implementation of the permitting program is based upon its interpretation that its primary responsibility is to prevent harm to water resources. The District points out that there are a number of factors to be considered in utilizing reclaimed water. These factors include, but are not limited to, the cost of the reclaimed water, the cost of retrofitting an irrigation system, the long-term availability of the reclaimed supply and the availability of a back-up supply.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition filed by Seacoast challenging the renewal of Permit Number 50-00617-W to PGA for golf course irrigation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of February 1995. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February 1995.
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 concerns the entitlement of GJPS Lukas, Inc. to be granted a consumptive use of water permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District. See Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On December 7, 1990, the Applicant applied for a consumptive use of water permit under application no. 2-127-0808AN as submitted to St. Johns. The Applicant asked that it be allowed to withdraw water from the Floridian aquifer to irrigate a 240 acre sod farm by the use of four wells and a pipeline ditch irrigation system. This was a new use. On January 9, 1991, St. Johns prepared a technical staff report recommending approval of the application. Petitioner was provided notice of this pending disposition on January 15, 1991 leading to his protest to the grant of the permit. Petitioner's property is adjacent to the Applicant's property. Petitioner has a well which he uses for domestic water needs which is in the vicinity of the proposed project. He also has a commercial fish operation with a number of fish ponds including fresh water ponds. Both these uses may potentially be affected by the proposed consumptive water use contemplated by the Applicant. St. Johns calculated that the irrigation of 240 acres of sod, by calculation using the modified Blaney-Criddle formula pertaining to evapotranspiration, calls for a maximum extraction of 169.4 million gallons a year. In any one month the amount withdrawn should not exceed 37.4 million gallons. The Floridian aquifer at the place where the Applicant proposes to draw water is capable of the production of 169.4 million gallons of water per year and 37.4 million gallons per month without promoting environmental or economic harm. Extraction of this water for purposes of irrigation is an acceptable arrangement in that no wastewater treatment plants are within a five mile radius of the site of the proposed use. Therefore it would not be economically, technically or environmentally feasible for the Applicant to use reclaimed wastewater as a source for its irrigation needs. The aquifer in that area is stable. There was no showing in the hearing by competent evidence that saline water intrusion problems now exist in the area of the proposed site of withdrawal. There was no showing that the withdrawal of as much as 169.4 million gallons per year would cause a saline water intrusion problem. The fields where the Applicant intends to apply the extracted water for irrigation purposes are surrounded by a system of ditches and water control structures to confine the water as applied to the sod and any mixing of that water with any surface or subsurface waters that are contributed by rain events. The ditches and control structures keep the water on the property and prevent flooding downgradient of the subject property. As a consequence flood damage on adjacent properties is not to be expected. On a related issue, the ditches and control structures will prevent water from discharging into receiving bodies of water and thereby degrading water in those receiving bodies such as the fish ponds operated by the Petitioner. The water quality of the Floridian aquifer will not be harmed by the activities of the Applicant in withdrawing this water. In the worse circumstances the well used by the Petitioner will be affected by the Applicant extracting the water from the aquifer to the extent of .25 to .4 drawdown in feet in the well the Petitioner uses. This is not a substantial impediment to the Petitioner's ability to withdraw needed water from the well he uses. The Floridian aquifer in the area in question is semi-confined. The four wells that would be used in withdrawing water for the Applicant's purposes will extract the water at 110 feet below the surface. Between that level and the surface are three confining areas of clay totaling approximately 40 feet in thickness. Those confining units of clay would protect the water at the surface when the Applicant withdraws water and induces a gradient. In particular, the nature of the stratification in the soils in the area in question and the topography are such that the Petitioner's fish ponds, when taking into account the distance between the Applicant's operation and those fish ponds, the clay confining units and the gradient between the Applicant's property and the Petitioner's fish ponds, would not lead to a reduction in the water levels of the Petitioner's fish ponds when the water was extracted by the Applicant. The proposed use by the Applicant would not require invading another use reserved by a permit issued from St. Johns. St. Johns has not established minimum levels or rates of flow for the surface water in the area where the Applicant proposes to extract the water. Nor has St. Johns established a minimum level for a water table aquifer or a minimum potentiometric surface water for an aquifer in the area where the Applicant proposes to extract the water. The surficial aquifer water table beneath the property where the Applicant intends to apply the extracted water should not be raised inordinately should the Applicant follow the best management practice as recommended as special condition No. 9 to the Consumptive Use Technical Staff Report pertaining to this project. Nonetheless if the water table beneath the Applicant's property were to be raised to a level which is too high or if the activities by the Applicant would result in excessive surface water runoff the ditches and water control structures that isolate the Applicant's property would prevent the water level in the Petitioner's fish pond from being increased by the Applicant's proposed activities. The application of the extracted water and the expected flow pattern of water applied to the surface and control of that water is set out in St. Johns' Exhibit No. 5 and described in the testimony of Jack Caldwell Lawrence, Jr., employee of St. Johns and an expert in geology and hydrology. See pages 61 and 62 of the transcript. Concerning water quality in the Petitioner's fish pond, it will not be affected by the Applicant's proposed activities in extracting the water. The gradients and distances between the Petitioner's fish pond and the Applicant's fields do not allow surface water or water in the surficial aquifer, which is groundwater above the confining clay unit, to flow from the Applicant's fields into the Petitioner's fish ponds. Again the ditches and control structures related to the project offer additional protection against a compromise to the water quality in the Petitioner's fish ponds. The Technical Staff Report on this project is an apt description of the project and the necessary conditions to granting a permit which would protect the public and environment. One modification has been made to that report and that modification is appropriate. It changes the intended disposition from one of allowing surface water from the onsite management system to be used as the primary irrigation supply with the Floridian aquifer serving as a supplementary source to one in which the Applicant would not use the onsite management system as a water supply source but would use the onsite management system simply as a discharge holding area.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which approves the application for consumptive use of water subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, excepting the need to have the Applicant utilize water from the onsite management system as the primary source of irrigation of its sod. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following discussion is made of the suggested facts set forth in the proposed recommended orders. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-6 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 7, Petitioner does not have standing to take issue with the quality of notice provided to other adjacent landowners. As to Paragraph 8, the witness had sufficient understanding of the location and nature of the surficial or sand aquifer and the clay confining units to have his testimony credited. As to Paragraph 9 the fact that the witness is unaware of the exact depth of the Petitioner's fish pond does not cause his testimony to be disregarded in deciding that the fish ponds would not be negatively impacted by the activities contemplated in this permit application. As to Paragraph 10, this proposed fact is inconsequential given the de novo nature of this proceeding. As to Paragraph 11, see discussion of Paragraph 7. As to Paragraph 12, it is rejected. As to Paragraph 13, that knowledge was not necessary in determining the outcome here. As to Paragraph 14, it is accepted in hypothetical terms, however, no showing was made that chlorides would increase in this instance and adversely affect the Petitioner's fish based upon the evidence adduced at hearing. As to Paragraph 15, the soil samples from Petitioner's property are inclusive and less reliable that the description of soil in the general area as set forth by the witness for St. Johns. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, Mackintosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham and Simmons, P.A. 200 West First Street, Suite 22 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Michael D. Jones, Esquire 996 Westwood Square, Suite 04 Oviedo, FL 32765 Michael D. Jones, Esquire Post Office Box 3567 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Eric T. Olsen, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00493 is for an existing consumptive use permit for five wells located in the Peace River Basin, Polk County on 608.6 acres. The permit seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 14.97 million gallons per day. Ninety-five percent of the water withdrawal will be used for industrial purposes and five percent will be used for irrigation. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the application except that well located at Latitude 28 degrees 03' 13", Longitude 81 degrees 47' 54". That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage quarterly to the district beginning January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be granted in the amounts applied for in Application No. 76-00493 subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Coca Cola Company Post Office Box 247 Auburndale, Florida 33823
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Bocilla Utilities, Inc. is entitled to a public drinking water construction permit for the expansion of an existing reverse-osmosis water plant located on Don Pedro Island.
Findings Of Fact Bocilla Utilities, Inc. (Applicant) was incorporated in the mid-1980s for the purpose of supplying water to a residential development being developed by some or all of the principals of the water utility. The residential development is on a bridgeless barrier island in Charlotte County. Applicant initially proposed locating the plant on the mainland with submerged pipes to the island. This proposal was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Regulation, but the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund denied Applicant's request for an easement across submerged state lands. After failing to obtain a submerged land easement, Applicant obtained the permits to build a reverse-osmosis (RO) water plant at its present location on the barrier island. Included among the permits was a permit from the Department of Natural Resources dated September 11, 1985, allowing Applicant to construct the water treatment plant, two underground concrete water storage tanks, and a tennis court on top of the tanks up to 100 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Applicant is a certificated utility that, since September 1994, has been regulated by the Public Service Commission. It was previously regulated by Charlotte County. By Application for a Public Drinking Water Facility Construction Permit filed January 26, 1995 (Application), Applicant requested a permit to expand the treatment capacity of its water plant from 30,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 120,000 gpd. By installing the new treatment equipment in two stages, the plant would have an immediate capacity of 60,000 gpd. Applicant proposes no material changes to the existing water storage tanks, distribution system, or the size or location of the building that houses the existing and proposed water treatment equipment. The Application form asks Applicant to identify any well construction permits obtained from the water management district and to provide a map showing any sanitary hazards within 500 feet of each proposed well. The Application form requires Applicant's professional engineer to attest that the project complies with Chapter 62-555, Florida Administrative Code. The Engineering Report attached to the completed Application supplies the requested information, but explains that Applicant's hydrogeologist had not, as of the date of the report, obtained the well-construction permits from the water management district. By Intent to Issue dated February 27, 1995, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) gave notice of its intent to issue the requested permit. Noting that it has permitting jurisdiction under Section 403.861(9), Florida Statutes, and that the project is not exempt, DEP determined that a public drinking water construction permit is required for the proposed work. The Intent to Issue is based on DEP's belief that reasonable assurances have been provided to indicate that the proposed project will not adversely impact water quality and the proposed project will comply with the appropriate provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-4, 62-550, 62- 555 and 62-699. Petitioners timely objected to the issuance of the proposed permit. Petitioners reside in Applicant's certificated area on the barrier island. They presently obtain their water from private wells or cisterns, rather than Applicant. If the permit were granted so as to expand Applicant's production capacity, Petitioners would be more likely required to obtain water from Applicant due to Charlotte County's mandatory hookup ordinance. About a week before filing the Application, Applicant applied on January 20, 1995, to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for permits for the construction of the two wells included in the draft permit. SWFWMD granted these permits on February 8, 1995, about three weeks after receiving the applications. Consistent with its normal practice in granting well-construction permits, SWFWMD did not provide interested persons with a point of entry to challenge the permits. The SWFWMD permits provide in part: Compliance with state and local county health regulations as per Chapter 17-555, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), is required via the Drinking Water System Permit. Compliance with Chapters 17-532 and 17- 555, F.A.C., on construction standards and grouting procedures for Public Supply Wells shall be followed. * * * This well site has been judged as satisfactory based on the location and information provided to [SWFWMD] at the time of the well site inspection. . . . * * * Public Supply Wells must meet certain setback requirements from all potential sources of contamination. To obtain and retain your Drinking Water System Permit, please coordinate any future development of the surrounding property within 200' of your well site with the Charlotte County Health Department. * * * By letter dated February 14, 1995, from a SWFWMD representative to Applicant's hydrogeological consultant, SWFWMD acknowledged that it granted Applicant a setback variance of 100 feet from nearby septic systems in permitting the two new wells. The letter states that the "variance is based upon the known geohydrology of the area and the proposed construction of the wells," as well as an understanding that the "existing public system is working out with no problems." A month later, a letter from a DEP engineer identifies various types of sanitary hazards and implicitly ratifies the setback variance granted by SWFWMD. By letter dated March 14, 1995, Gary Maier identified sanitary hazards as septic tank systems, sewer lines, swimming pools and associated chemicals, pet excretions, and residential chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers, paints, oils, and solvents. Mr. Maier's letter acknowledges that SWFWMD had granted a variance from 200 feet to 100 feet "due to geologic and treatment conditions," but cautions that "any further decrease in setbacks for sanitary hazards would be imprudent." Applicant's water plant is located on Don Pedro Island, which is part of an island chain consisting, from north to south, of Knight Island, Don Pedro Island, and, usually, Little Gasparilla Island. The low-lying island chain fronts the Gulf of Mexico on the west. The northern end of the island chain abuts Lemon Bay on the east. Over the years, storms have opened and closed passes at various points along the island chain. The island chain is vulnerable to flooding, and some areas are more vulnerable than others. One of the historic passes is Bocilla Pass. The plant site area is about a half mile south of this now-closed pass. The Gulf beaches on either side of the point at which the Bocilla Pass emptied into the Gulf have suffered considerable erosion in recent years, to the point that recently built homes have been inundated by water and had to be removed or razed. The plant site area includes the building housing the water treatment and other equipment, two 50,000-gallon storage tanks immediately to the west of the building, the existing water supply well located just east of the building, and the two proposed water supply wells located a short distance east and south of the building. The existing storage tanks, which mark the westernmost extent of the plant site area, are about 235 feet east of a pronounced erosion line along the Gulf shore and are separated from the Gulf by South Gulf Boulevard. Immediately adjacent to the tanks is the building housing the water treatment equipment. The two proposed wells would be located about 200 and 450 feet south of the tanks. The plant site area is much closer to water on the east. The southerly proposed well is about 12 feet west of the mean high water line of Bocilla Lagoon, and the northerly proposed well is about 16 feet west of the mean high water line of Bocilla Lagoon. The building housing the water treatment equipment is further away from the water, but still less than 50 feet. Bocilla Lagoon is a long and narrow waterway that was dredged in a north-south direction parallel to the Gulf shoreline. Bocilla Lagoon is closed off by land less than a quarter of a mile south of the plant site area. The lagoon runs to the north to connect to what remains of Bocilla Pass, which then runs easterly a short distance to a dredged extension of Lemon Bay. The building housing the water treatment equipment and the storage tanks are not located in the vulnerable FEMA V[elocity] zone. However, the record does not establish the location of the proposed wells relative to the V- zone. Testimony concerning the location of the V-zone relative to the water plant establishes only that the building, not the two proposed wells, are safely outside the V-zone. Nothing in the record establishes contour lines on the barrier island in the vicinity of the plant site area or the elevation of the land at the site of the two proposed wells. Applicant has recently upgraded the security of the storage tanks through the addition of locks to the manholes. The installation of fences is impractical and unnecessary because the tanks are topped by a six-inch, reinforced slab of concrete that also serves as tennis courts. The proposed wells would be well constructed. They would extend 167 feet into a confined artesian aquifer. The concrete pressurized grouting coupled with a potentiometric surface of seven feet make it unlikely that the wells would be vulnerable to contaminants. During severe-storm conditions, pumping would cease, leaving the system in its naturally pressurized state, so that surface water could not easily flow down into the well. Additionally, the RO filtration technology is one of the most effective at eliminating contaminants from drinking water. However, failing to have shown that the two proposed wells are outside the V-zone, Applicant has also failed to provide reasonable assurances that the two proposed wells would be protected from damage from the velocity wave action associated with the V-zone. Applicant has constructed and operated the water plant in an exemplary fashion. Applicant has at all times met or exceeded applicable standards for water quality, safety, and operations. Original construction exceeded minimum requirements and added to the durability of the fixtures. The building housing the water treatment equipment and hydropneumatic tank has been issued a floodproofing certificate by a registered engineer. The certificate states that, with human intervention in the form of bolting predrilled plywood boards over openings, the plant is waterproofed to an elevation of 14 feet NGVD, which is one foot higher than the FEMA-supplied base flood elevation of 13 feet NGVD. Applicant employs an operations manager with a Class A license rather than one with merely a Class C license, even though only a Class C operator is required for a water plant of this size. Also, Applicant maintains a low-level chlorine indicator, even though not required to do so due to the small size of the utility. The relevant sewage flows from the quantity of water that would be drawn by each proposed well would be greater than 2000 gpd. Near the proposed wells are single- and multi-family residences served by on-site sewage disposal systems, the above- described road, a swimming pool on the other side of the road, an injection well, and the treatment plant at which Applicant stores anti-scaling agents, ammonia, chlorine, and acid. However, Applicant has shown that none of these items is within 100 feet of the proposed wells. Bocilla Lagoon is not a sanitary hazard at this time. The two deficiencies in Applicant's proof relate solely to the susceptibility of the proposed wells to a significant risk of damage from flooding and other disasters and the location of the proposed wells relative to areas least subject to localized flooding. In all other respects, such as fire flow and security, Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the applicable criteria would be satisfied or that the proposed work would have no bearing on the issue raised by Petitioners.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a final order denying the application of Bocilla Utilities, Inc. for a public water supply construction permit. ENTERED on August 25, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 25, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant and repetitious. 6-7 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and legal argument. (except last sentence): rejected as subordinate, recitation of testimony, and irrelevant. 8 (last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as irrelevant. 10: adopted or adopted in substance, except to extent of legal argument as to effect of action of SWFWMD in granting variance. 11-12: rejected as irrelevant. 13 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (last sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 14-17 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as legal argument. 18-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22: rejected as unnecessary. 23: adopted or adopted in substance as to protection from only sanitary hazards. 24-26: adopted or adopted in substance as to description of aquifer, proposed well construction, and efficiency of RO filtration process, but not as reasons in support of Paragraph 23. 27 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 27 (remainder): rejected as unnecessary. 28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as unnecessary. 30-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32: rejected as irrelevant. 33-40: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Robert Starr P.O. Box 5337 Grove City, FL 34224 Betty Brenneman P.O. Box 67 Placida, FL 33946 Jim Duff P.O. Box 41 Placida, FL 33946 M. Christopher Bryant Oertel Hoffman P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2440
