The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Southwest Florida Water Management District had permitting authority for the issuance of consumptive use permits in the area in which Respondent, El Jobean, proposes to sink its irrigation well. On December 12, 1988, El Jobean submitted a consumptive use permit application to sink a new well for the purpose of irrigation of a golf course to be developed on the property it owns in Sarasota County. The well is to be located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 365, Range 20R, in Sarasota County, Florida near the southern boundary of an irregularly shaped piece of property consisting of approximately 855 acres, owned by the applicant, which extends over Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, Township 365, Range 20E. Respondent proposed to sink a 10 inch diameter well to a total depth of approximately 900 feet with casing in the well now to extend down to 300 feet, with a pump capacity of 1,000 GPM. The golf course to be irrigated is to encompass approximately 190 acres. The applicant requested authority to withdraw an average of 600,000 GPD with a limitation of a maximum of 1,440,000 GPD. The application was properly staffed by the District. In the staff report on the application, the average daily use limitation was expanded to 707,000 GPD; consumptive use was raised from 0 to 139,000 GPD; and maximum daily consumption was reduced from 1,440,000 GPD to 1,240,000 GPD. These changes were due to correction of arithmetic errors in the application and were accepted by the applicant. The ultimate recommendation of the staff was for approval of a 6 year permit, subject to certain conditions outlined in subparagraph I of the staff report. These special conditions require the provision and use of flow measuring devices to maintain an accurate record of the water withdrawn; the maintenance of flow records and the providing of periodic reports to the District; the collection and analyzing of water quality of samples taken from the well to measure the appropriate parameters for chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids; the reporting of the results of these samplings and a description of the sampling and analytical methodologies employed; and a requirement that the permittee investigate the feasibility of supplementing and/or substituting drawn water with treated sewage affluent. After the staff report was submitted, proper notice of the District's intent to issue the permit was published. Based on that notice, protests were filed both by Miakka and Mr. Bishop. The area in question is located within the Manasota Basin which, itself, is located within the Southern West-Central Florida Ground Water Basin, (SWCFGWB), which encompasses all of Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties, and parts of Lee, Glades, Charlotte and Highlands Counties. The SWCFGWB sits atop several aquifers which include the Floridian Aquifer, two Intermediate aquifers, and the Surficial Aquifer. The Floridian Aquifer is the deepest and the Surficial Aquifer is on the top. The Miakka Community Club is a Florida corporation made up of residents of the pertinent area whose primary function is to preserve and conserve the rural nature and spirit of the Northeast section of Sarasota County. The club performs this function through educational programs, community activities, and participation in the legislative process. Miakka urges denial of the permit sought by El Jobean based on its membership's belief that the property owners whose property is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed well will be adversely affected if El Jobean is permitted to sink its well and withdraw water from it. The club membership believes that approval of El Jobean's well will result in contamination of existing personal water wells due to excessive use by El Jobean; potential contamination of Sarasota County's future drinking water sources which include the capital Ringling,/MacArthur tract and the Myakka River; reduction of property values; and destruction of personal resources. Petitioner also urges that since the proposed golf course will be a part of a private club for the use of members only, in which membership will be limited, there is no public benefit derived from the approval of and sinking of the well in question. Petitioner also contends that during the periods of severe water shortage as are being currently experienced, permission to sink a well of this size to draw water in of the magnitude expressed in the application, would be counterproductive and detrimental to the interests of the other property owners in the area. In support of its claim, Petitioner presented the testimony of two homeowners from the area, Mr. Richardson and Ms. Mustico. Mr. Richardson, whose well is 183 feet deep, has had several problems with his well even without the instant drilling. In 1974, and subsequent thereto, he has had to go deeper with a suction pipe because the water has dropped below the level of the tail pipe. Ms. Mustico's 160 foot deep well, with 80 feet of casing, is used to supply water for the home. She also has other wells for watering her lawn and for livestock, one of which goes down 500 feet. She is concerned that the well proposed by El Jobean will adversely impact her ability to draw water from her wells because, she believes, the water level from which her water is drawn will drop. In the past, her primary well has gone dry and the wells of several neighbors have gone dry as well. Through maps and other documentation taken from the Ground Water Resource Availability Inventory for Sarasota County, Florida, prepared by the District in March 1988, Petitioner has established that areas of significant groundwater withdrawal within the SWCFGWB occur in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto and Highlands Counties. With the exception of an extremely small portion of Sarasota County located contiguous to Manatee County, there appear to be no areas of major ground water withdrawal currently existing in Sarasota County. The majority of the major municipal well fields within the pertinent basin that are located within Sarasota County, extend down to the Intermediate and Surficial Aquifers with only 3 extending through the lower Intermediate into the Floridan Aquifer. These include the Verna well field located in the northeast corner of Sarasota County where it abuts Manatee County; the Sarasota County well field located in northwest Sarasota County near the Manatee County line; and the Sorrento Utility, Inc., well field which is located near the Gulf Coast, approximately two-fifths of the way down between the Manatee and Charlotte County lines. With the exception of the Verna well field, all the municipal well fields in Sarasota County appear to be reverse osmosis systems and as of 1987, there were 28 reverse osmosis systems located within Sarasota County. Most are relatively small in their output measured in millions of gallons per day. With the exception of 3 public supply wells, 2 of which are permitted an average annual pumpage greater than 100,000 GPD and 1 of which is permitted less, all of the permitted public supply well fields in Sarasota County are located west and south of 1-75 as it extends from the Manatee County line in the north to the Charlotte County line in the south. The El Jobean well would be located east of the line, in that area occupied by the 3 public supply wells. Generalized recharge areas for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the groundwater basin in issue here have been categorized from "high", with a rate of more than 10 inches per year, to "Generally none", with a recharge rate at 0. In 1980, the high recharge rates existed in the north-central part of Pasco, the eastern part of Polk County, and the northeastern part of Highlands County. Sarasota County is in an area wherein the recharge rate was either very low or generally none. In September 1986, the high recharge rate was found in a very small area of northeastern Pasco County, and small areas in both Polk and Highlands Counties. Sarasota County, for the most part, was classified as having no recharge. In May 1987, the high recharge rates were, again, a small area in eastern Pasco County, a small area in northeastern Hillsborough County, a small area in southeastern Polk and northwestern Highlands Counties, and a minuscule area in central Pinellas County. Again, Sarasota County had a recharge rate of 0. Generalized estimated, calibrated, model-derived recharge and discharge values for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the ground water basin in issue here, as they pertain to Sarasota County, reflect positive 2 recharge to negative 1 discharge inches per year. Historically, however, the northeast portion of Sarasota County, where the El Jobean well in question would be located, evaluated by various individuals or agencies periodically from 1980 through 1988, reflects a recharge of anywhere from 0 to 2 inches per year. None of this documentation was supplemented, however, by direct testimony by an individual knowledgeable in this area, and Petitioner's main thrust appears to be an unsubstantiated fear that the sinking of El Jobean's well will have a negative impact on its membership's wells. Admittedly, the residents in the area in question all rely on private wells for the majority of their water supply, other than through the catchment of rainwater, which is insignificant. It was also established that the area has been undergoing a severe water shortage and that conservation measures have been mandated. On the other hand, El Jobean presented the testimony of a hydrogeologist, Mr. Moresi, who has extensive experience with the modeling process used to determine water consumption and recharge in southwest Florida and Sarasota County. The aquifer system in Florida is made up of water bearing limestone layers below the surficial sand base. This aquifer system underlays the various zones throughout the state and reflects a surficial aquifer extending from ground level down approximately 70 feet to a confining bed which separates it from the lower strata. This top confining bed is approximately 20 feet thick, and below it is the Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn Aquifer, which is between 100 and 200 feet deep and which rests on another confining bed somewhat thicker than the upper one. Below the second confining bed is the Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa Aquifer which extends approximately from the 250 foot to the 450 foot level at the Manatee County line, and between the 320 foot and the 710 foot level at the Charlotte County line. Another confining bed lays between this aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer which starts at the 500 foot level and goes down well below the 900 foot level in the north and extends from the 730 foot level down in the south. The confining bed below the surficial aquifer is made up of a clay material which retards the movement of water from one aquifer to another. The surficial aquifer is porous and saturated with water from the water table down. Since the confining beds are far less porous than the aquifers they separate, water moves much more slowly through them. The lower aquifers are made up of limestone and are also porous and contain water. The Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn formation consists of limestone and clay, but is water bearing. The Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa formation is similar and both make up the intermediate aquifer below which is the lower confining bed followed by the Floridan aquifer. Respondent's well would be cased in steel down to an area approximately 100 feet into the Floridan Aquifer, through the Lower Hawthorn- Upper Tampa Aquifer and through the lower confining bed. Since the well would be cased to well below the lower confining bed, water existing in the upper aquifers, would be prevented from being drawn down by operation, of the Respondent's well either directly or by settling down to replace the water drawn out. Generally, the deeper a well is drilled, the worse the quality of the water, and it becomes less potable. The Floridan Aquifer produces far more copious quantities of water than do the intermediate aquifers. However, since it is cheaper to drill to the intermediate zones as the wells need not be so deep, and since the water there is better, most domestic wells go no deeper than these aquifers. They go down approximately 150 to 180 feet. The pressure in each level is separate from and different from that in the other aquifers. The upper intermediate system generally has a lower pressure than the lower intermediate system. As a result, water from the lower intermediate system tends to leak upward toward the upper intermediate aquifer, rather than the reverse. In addition, a recent survey tends to show that the Floridan aquifer also tends to leak upward into the lower intermediate level. It also shows that leakage through the confining beds amounts to .002 GPD per cubic foot of aquifer. Petitioner claims that since the lower water is of lesser quality, and since withdrawal of water from the upper layers would promote leakage upward, thereby adding lower grade water to the better grade upper water, there could be a diminishment in upper level water quality as a result of water being drawn from the upper levels. However, according to Mr. Moresi, the .002 figure is so small it would result in an infinitesimally small drawdown of water level from the upper intermediate level aquifer and the potential for compromise of the water quality therein is remote. Clearly, this is not the result of drawing water from the Floridan Aquifer as the well in question would do but more the result of the residential wells extending into the upper levels. The District ran a model for the proposed El Jobean well (a Jacob- Hantush model) which showed that drawdown at the wellhead would be just over 2 feet. This means that use of the Respondent's well would reduce the water level in the Floridan Aquifer at the well head by 2 feet. However, this drawdown is shown to decrease rapidly out to where, at distance, it is almost immeasurable. In fact, drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer at 24,000 feet from the well head (approximately 4.5 miles) would be .1 feet, slightly or 1 inch. The .1 foot drawdown relates to the lowest (Floridan) aquifer and the resultant drawdown in the upper intermediate aquifer, into which the majority of residential wells are sunk, would be relatively undetectable. Since the Petitioner's wells, at their deepest, go only into the upper intermediate level, and would be separated by 2 confining beds from the Floridan Aquifer, the impact on the domestic wells at 2 miles from the El Jobean wellhead would be immeasurable. Even at 1 mile, there would be minimal drawdown in the Floridan Aquifer and almost none in the upper intermediate aquifer. The potentiometric surface of the intermediate layer would not be adversely affected, nor would that of the surface water. Recognizing the potential for saltwater intrusion which occurs all along the coast, based on his studies, Mr. Moresi concluded that the well in question here would not induce significant saltwater intrusion. He concluded as well that the permit is consistent with the requirements of the District rule; that the amount permitted for the use of irrigation of the golf course is reasonable, assuming a golf course is a reasonable and appropriate use of water; that the withdrawal by the well in issue would not have an adverse impact on users outside the property on which the well was located; that it would not impact existing users; that there is no other water available for the purpose intended; that the water taken from the Floridan Aquifer under this permit may be potable but is of poor quality; and that the applicant met rule standards. Mr. Moresi also discussed the possible cumulative impact of the proposed well when operated along with the currently existing wells. If there are other drawdowns from the same cone into which El Jobean's well would be sunk, the withdrawals would be cumulative. However, as best he can determine, the only other significant drawdown from the cone pertinent here is that of the Verna well field. In his opinion, that well field's drawdown, which is from the northeast, would not be significant even when considered with the El Jobean well. Mr. Moresi was also satisfied that while the confining bed separating the surficial aquifer from the next lower level might be disturbed, the deeper one goes, the less likely there is to be mixing of aquifers. The only instance where water could move from one level to another as a result of the well is where there is no casing on the bore hole. In the instant case, plans call for, and permit conditions require, the well to be cased to below the lowest confining bed. Consequently, there should be no upward or downward flow of water as a result of the bore. Mr. Tyson, who worked on the evaluation of El Jobean's application for permit, was of the opinion that the amount of water requested by El Jobean in its application was appropriate for a golf course. This does not mean that a golf course is an appropriate use of the property. The special conditions imposed on the granting of the permit by the District are designed to reduce any impact possibly caused by the permitted activity. The Jacob-Hantush model used in analysis of the instant application is considered to be a conservative tool and showed minimal drawdown at all property boundaries. The use of other models in this case was considered neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr. Tyson considers the proposed permit a reasonable beneficial use as defined in the Florida Administrative Code and statutes because it proposes use of reasonable amounts of water and the models indicate no unfavorable impact. Based on the past practice of permitting golf courses with subdivisions, he feels the proposed use is reasonable. He concludes, therefore, that it is in the public interest to grant this permit. In his opinion, the permit will not interfere with legal existing uses and meets all statute and rule requirements. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is found that petitioner has presented insufficient evidence to support its claim that approval and operation of El Jobean's well as proposed would have an adverse impact on the property owners. It's concerns are no doubt sincere, but these concerns are not sufficiently confirmed by evidence of record. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that if the permit were granted, it would be modified by the addition of two conditions: The proposed well shall be constructed with a minimum of 600 feet of casing so as to prevent the unauthorized interchange of water between water bearing zones in order to prevent the deterioration of water quality in the shallower zones. If the well cannot be properly completed to prevent such an unauthorized interchange of water, the well shall be abandoned and plugged in accordance with Rule 17-21.10(2)(c), F.A.C.. Upon completion of the well, a copy of the well construction completion report shall be sent to the District. The permittee shall line the bottom of the pond that will be used as the irrigation source, with clay to a thickness equal to 1.5 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Consumptive Use Permit Number 209458, as modified by the conditions stipulated to at the hearing held herein on June 7, 1989, and outlined in Finding of Fact Number 27 herein, to El Jobean Philharmonic Group, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of the ultimate issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as indicating original conditions. The parties stipulated to additional conditions at the hearing. Accepted. 15 & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-33. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertinent. 34 & 35. Accepted. 36 & 37. Accepted. 38 & 39. Redundant. 40-43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45-51. Accepted. 52 & 53. Accepted. 54-56. Accepted. 57 & 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59-66. Accepted. 67-75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76 & 77. Accepted and incorporated herein. 78. Accepted. 79-84. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. 87 & 88. Accepted. 89-93. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted in the natural source sense suggested by Petitioner. 96-99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100 & 101. Accepted and incorporated herein. 102-105. Accepted and incorporated herein. 106. Accepted. 107 & 108. Accepted. 109 & 110. Accepted. For the Respondents: 1 & 2. Stipulation between the parties accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence except for the second sentence which is incorporated herein as a Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 22-26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29. Accepted. 30-32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Ayech Personal Representative Miakka Community Club 421 Verna Rd. Sarasota, Florida 34240 Douglas Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 6899
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY (STARKEY WELLFIELD) The Authority is a nonprofit five-member interlocal entity created in 1974, pursuant to Section 373.1962, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of planning, designing and operating new sources of water supply to governmental entities in Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Its members include the Counties of Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough and the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. The City of New Port Richey also has a seat on the Authority Board. The Authority's revenues are presently derived entirely from the sale of water to its customers. It owns and/or operates five wellfields, some of which are connected by a water transmission pipeline to each other and to wellfields operated or owned by Pinellas County and the City of St. Petersburg. In 1984, the Authority supplied approximately 74 million gallons per day (mgd) to its customers and held consumptive use permits (CUPs) for a total of 94 mgd average and 144 mgd peak or maximum. The Authority anticipates that it will serve approximately 800,000 people in the year 1985. Its master plan, which was last updated in 1982, projects future water demands through 1995 and identifies alternative sources of supply to satisfy those demands. One of the wellfields presently operated by the Authority is the Starkey Wellfield located in Pasco County. The Starkey Wellfield property, located on some 5,400 or 6,947 acres, was acquired in phases by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) over a period of years beginning in the early 1970's. There are two remaining parcels which the District has contracted to acquire in 1985 and 1986. These parcels will be acquired under the "Save Our Rivers" program embodied in Section 373.59, Florida Statutes. The various contracts between the District and the Starkey family contain restrictive covenants which require that "the land remain, as nearly as practicable, in its natural state" and that water withdrawals be restricted so that they "do not substantially and/or permanently damage the lands adjacent to the area." In 1981, the District granted the Authority an exclusive license to operate a wellfield on the Starkey property provided that it maintain the wellfield "as nearly as practicable in its natural state." All cater produced from the property is to be for the water supply needs of the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County, except that those entities can authorize the sale of surplus water. Prior to the Authority's involvement with the Starkey Wellfield, the City of New Port Richey planned and constructed water supply facilities at the extreme western portion of the wellfield. Four wells were originally permitted for 3 mgd average and 4.5 mgd maximum. In 1979, in conjunction with Pasco County as a co-applicant, the permit was modified to provide for increased withdrawals of 8 mgd average and 15 mgd peak. This increase was not implemented due to contractual problems between the City and the County. Then, in December of 1981, the Authority became involved in the Starkey Wellfield. Pursuant to a Water Transfer and Management Agreement and a Water Supply Agreement, the City of New Port Richey's four existing wells were transferred to the Authority and the Authority was authorized to construct additional wells and sell the water to the City and Pasco County. As noted above, any surplus water could be sold to others. These agreements have a term of 35 years, with an option of a 35-year renewal period. If the agreements are terminated, the facilities are to revert back to the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County. In 1982, the Authority, the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County obtained the present CUP authorizing the construction and operation of a total of 14 wells and permitting withdrawals at an average annual rate of 8 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 15 mgd. This CUP expires on February 3, 1986. The ten presently operating wells have the capacity to produce 22 mgd. The financing arrangements for the construction of the Starkey Wellfield are not sufficient to complete construction. There is a shortfall of about $720,000, which the Authority plans to make up in revenues from the facility. On December 20, 1983, the Authority, with the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County as co-applicants, applied to the District for a modification of the 1982 CUP to increase withdrawals from 8 mgd average, 15 mgd maximum to 11 mgd average and 21 mgd maximum. At the time, the Authority believed that the increases were justified by the projected water demands of the City and Pasco County. In preparing its water supply plan submitted to the District on March 1, 1984, the Authority determined that it would be feasible to interconnect the Starkey Wellfield with the Cypress Creek pipeline and other major production facilities. In order to finance this pipeline interconnection and again believing that there was sufficient demand in Pasco County and the City of New Port Richey to justify increased withdrawals, the Authority, along with the City and the County, amended the application to modify their CUP on March 23, 1984. This amendment sought average annual withdrawals of 15 mgd and maximum daily withdrawals of 25 mgd. Also requested was the relocation of 2 wells that have not yet been constructed. Between 1971 and 1982, five pump tests have been performed at the Starkey Wellfield, and monitor wells are installed throughout the property. Except for the northwest corner of the property, existing withdrawals have not changed the natural condition of the property. Utilizing these various tests and monitoring results to predict the hydrologic effects of the Authority's proposed increased withdrawals, the District found that the potentiometric drawdown and the water table drawdown at the requested rates would each increase to almost twice the drawdown at the currently permitted rates. The withdrawal of water will cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered more than five feet outside the northern and southern boundaries of the Starkey Wellfield property. The one-foot water table drawdown anticipated from the increased withdrawals could have an adverse effect upon lands immediately adjacent to the north and west. Likewise, this one foot water table drawdown could cause adverse ecological effects on forests and wetlands within the Starkey Wellfield properties. Approximately 40 percent of the Starkey property is high quality wetlands. In June of 1984, a three-day field validation multi-pump test was performed for the Authority. These test results were not available to the District at the time it performed its evaluation. The June tests showed aquifer characteristics different than those previously thought to exist. A much higher transmissivity level was found and the differing leakance values throughout the property demonstrated that the aquifer beneath the Starkey Wellfield is not homogenous. A higher transmissivity level decreases the extent of potentiometric surface drawdown. After substituting the new aquifer characteristics found from the June pump tests, the Authority's computer modeling demonstrates no violation of District hydrologic rules with respect to potentiometric surface and water table drawdowns at the increased level of withdrawals. The Authority's ecologist did not feel that the increased withdrawals would adversely affect natural conditions on the Starkey property, stating that a one-foot water table drawdown is well within the adaptive range of wetland vegetation. In addition, the Authority will maintain its existing ecological monitoring plan on site. The District has not established regulatory levels for the rate of flow of streams or other water courses, for the potentiometric surface or for the surface water in the vicinity of the Starkey Wellfield. Deep monitor wells on the property indicate that there has been no increase in chloride concentrations. Increased withdrawals are not expected to induce saltwater encroachment. If it is found that the potentiometric surface at the Starkey property boundary is lowered more than five feet, an alternative pumping schedule can be put into effect to prevent that occurrence. The pattern of production can be changed by shifting to different wells during the dry season. Increased withdrawals will not lower off-site water tables, lakes or other impoundments by more than one foot, and the potentiometric surface will not be lowered below sea level. The Authority's proposed consumptive use of 15 mgd average would withdraw 2,777.77 gallons per acre per day if the Starkey Wellfield contains 5,400 acres, and 2,159.13 gallons per acre per day if it contains 6,947 acres. Its present permitted withdrawals average more than 1,000 gallons per acre per day. The Authority's proposed increased withdrawals will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water. BEXLEY (CENTRAL PASCO WELLFIELD) Bexley owns 14,510 acres of land in Pasco County located immediately east of the Starkey Wellfield. The land contains improved pasture, crops, planted pine and some cypress heads and ponds. He presently holds a CUP authorizing a combined average annual withdrawal of 2,416,000 gallons per day with a maximum withdrawal of 11,520,000 gallons per day. Such withdrawals are permitted for agricultural irrigation purposes and come from five wells. In August of 1983, Bexley entered into a contract with Pasco County. The contract requires Bexley to produce and supply to Pasco County an average of 9 mgd of public supply water and a maximum of 13 mgd. Pasco County is given the exclusive right to purchase these amounts and, indeed, must pay for the water made available, whether it is accepted or not. The term of the agreement between Bexley and the County is 33 years. Pursuant to his contract with Pasco County, Bexley applied to the District on December 21, 1983 to modify his existing CUP. A decrease in agricultural withdrawals was requested, as were five additional wells to produce 10.0 mgd average and 13.5 mgd maximum for Pasco County's public water supply. The five additional wells are to be located on 10,848 acres of land, to be known as the Central Pasco Wellfield, located within the 14,510 acres owned or controlled by Mr. Bexley. The modification would result in total (agricultural irrigation and public water supply use) withdrawals of 11,881,000 gallons per day annual average and 23,580,000 gallons per day maximum. In order to determine the anticipated hydrologic effect of the proposed withdrawals, Bexley's hydrologist reviewed and analyzed previous studies of regional hydrogeology and other wellfields prepared by the District, the United States Geological Survey and private consultants. He also conducted a "slug test" and a single well pump test over a period of six days. The aquifer characteristics of the Bexley property were found to be within the range of values derived from other regional testing. Assuming an homogenous aquifer, these characteristics were used in computer modeling to predict the effect of increased withdrawals on and off the Bexley property. The five-foot potentiometric drawdown is confined to the Bexley property, as is the three-foot water table drawdown. The effects of any potentiometric surface and/or water table drawdowns on agricultural crops in the vicinity of the production wells can be offset by irrigation. No lake or other impoundment off-site will be lowered more than one foot. The proposed withdrawals will not cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level. Regulatory levels have not been established by the District for potentiometric surface, stream flows or surface water on the Bexley property. Although there was no deep monitor well testing done, salt water encroachment is not anticipated as a result of the proposed withdrawals. After an independent evaluation, the District staff also concluded that the proposed Bexley withdrawals would not violate the District's hydrologic rules. The proposed public water supply use of 10 mgd average from 10,848 acres will average 921.80 gallons per acre per day. The combined public supply and agricultural irrigation use of 11.8 mgd from 14,510 acres will average 818.78 gallons per acre per day. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (SOUTH PASCO WELLFIELD) The City of Saint Petersburg owns and operates the South Pasco Wellfield, located on a 589 acre site to the south of the Bexley property. This wellfield has been in operation since 1973, and the City has a CUP to withdraw water at the rate of 16.9 mgd annual average and 24 mgd maximum as part of a public supply system. This CUP expires on September 1, 1992. The CUP requires the City to balance production from its South Pasco Wellfield equally with its two other well fields -- Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa. Among the terms and conditions of the CUP are that three regulatory wells be monitored so as not to cause the cumulative weekly average elevations of the potentiometric surface of the aquifer to be lower than the regulatory level set for each well. One of the regulatory wells is located on State Road 54, about 1.5 miles south of the Bexley southern property boundary. The regulatory level set for that well is that the potentiometric surface not be below 42.0 feet above mean sea level on a cumulative weekly average basis. On a noncumulative weekly average basis, the elevations may be 37.0 feet above mean sea level. Since 1974, average water levels at the State Road 54 regulatory well have fluctuated from 44.8 feet to 49.4 feet. Bexley's proposed combined average withdrawals may cause a potentiometric surface drawdown of between 1.3 and 1.9 feet at the State Road 54 regulatory well. The City of Saint Petersburg presented evidence that if the City pumps at its permitted average of 16.9 mgd and Bexley pumps at its average of 11.8 mgd, the City will only be able to withdraw 14.1 mgd without violating the regulatory level for the State Road 54 well. However, this result was obtained by starting off with the normal water levels in the State Road 54 well as they existed in 1980-81, a particularly dry year, and then comparing them with the results obtained if Bexley were to pump its total combined average of 11.8 mgd. This methodology fails to take into account Bexley's permitted withdrawals of 2.4 mgd as they existed in 1980-81, and in effect, double-counted them by initially ignoring their impact on the 1980-81 water levels and adding them back in as a part of the new combined total. In addition, the exhibits and testimony offered by the City failed to demonstrate that the cumulative weekly average elevations would go below 42.0 feet if Bexley were pumping at its requested average rate. While the City of St. Petersburg did utilize its permitted average capacity in 1975, for the past five years it has averaged only between 10.1 and 12.3 million gallons per day from its South Pasco Wellfield. Even if the regulatory level of the State Road 54 well were in jeopardy of violation, it would be possible to shift the pumpage among the eight production wells to counter such a result. The Bexley property is located approximately 3.5 miles from the center of pumpage at the South Pasco Wellfield. THE OTTO POTTBERG TRUST PROPERTY The Otto Pottberg Trust Property, owned by the Pottberg family since 1936, is comprised of 8,000 acres of land located immediately north of the Starkey Wellfield. The property is used for cattle grazing and a nursery operation, and wildlife on the property is abundant. The intervenor Pottberg has observed that since the operation of the well field began on the Starkey property, the cattle ponds on the Pottberg property dry up and vegetation and grasses are adversely affected during the dry seasons. He has observed a noticeable decline in all lake levels. He fears that increased withdrawals from the Starkey well field would diminish the use of his property for cattle grazing and nursery operations, would create a fire hazard and would adversely affect plant, animal and human life on his property. The Authority's experts found no surface drawdowns which would extend into the Pottberg property. The District determined that the potentiometric surface drawdown resulting from the proposed increased withdrawals from the Starkey Well field would exceed five feet on the northern boundary--thus extending into the property owned by the Otto Pottberg Trust. Likewise, the water table drawdown of one foot extends beyond the property at the northwest corner. However, there was no evidence that there are lakes on the Pottberg property at or near the northwest corner of the Starkey property, or that there is an existing CUP well on the Pottberg property in the area where the potentiometric surface drawdown exceeds five feet. PASCO COUNTY'S WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES Pasco County is legally authorized and required to provide an adequate public water supply for its citizens. Based upon per capita use and estimates of population growth, the quantity of public supply water needed by Pasco County has been estimated by various experts as follows: YEAR AVERAGE MGD MAXIMUM MGD 1985 11.3 20.3 1986 12.3 1988 12.8 28.6 1990 16.4 29.5 1993 18.8 40.8 1995 21.8 39.5 2000 27.2 49.0 In the year 1983, the Pasco County Utility Department actually utilized 8.1 mgd for public water supply purposes. Pasco County has a contract right and obligation to purchase the following amounts of water produced by the Authority at the Starkey Wellfield: YEAR AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM MGD 1985 7 1986 6.7 1987 6.4 1988 6.1 1989 5.8 1990 and thereafter 5.5 The City of New Port Richey also has an allocated entitlement to the remaining amounts of water withdrawn from the Starkey Wellfield under its current permit. The Water Supply Agreement for the Starkey Well field recognizes that the City and County will have increasing water supply needs, and provides that they may, upon giving the Authority two years prior notice, increase their entitlement. The Pasco County Utility Department also has 13 CUPs covering public supply wells located on or near the coast. These CUPs, which were renewed in May of 1984 and expire in May of 1992, authorize a total withdrawal of 4.54 mgd average. The majority of these wells are located in coastal areas along and to the west of the 10-foot potentiometric surface contour near the saltwater- freshwater interface. Wells west of the 10-foot contour line generally have high chloride levels. The County has experienced inefficiency in operating some of these wells, and they are considered suitable mainly for fire control and peaking purposes. A condition of the 13 CUPs requires a proportionate, or gallon by gallon, decrease of average day withdrawals should Pasco County acquire another source of public water supply. Pinellas County is contractually obligated to provide Pasco County with up to 10 mgd upon demand. Pasco County controls how much water it will take from the Pinellas County water system. This water is produced by the Authority from other wellfields located within Pasco County, is purchased by Pinellas County and then is transported to Pinellas County. Upon request by Pasco County, the water is then transported back up north again to Pasco County. The water travels approximately 25 to 40 miles from Pasco County to Pinellas County and back to Pasco County. The Pinellas County water system has sufficient capacity to continue to provide 10 mgd to Pasco County. Pasco County does not currently utilize the full 10 mgd, partially because such use would currently present difficulties in fulfilling its contractual obligation or entitlement from the Starkey Wellfield. The contract between Pinellas and Pasco Counties was not placed into evidence. No evidence was presented as to whether Pasco County is either able to or desires to eliminate or change its contract with Pinellas County. It was the position of the Pasco County Director of Public Works and Utilities that it would be more cost-effective to have an alternative source of public water supply. There was insufficient evidence produced at the hearing to determine if the Pinellas County water provided to Pasco County is more or less expensive than the rates presently charged by the Authority or by the contractual agreement between Bexley and Pasco County.
Findings Of Fact Lake Worth Drainage District requested a variance from the provisions of Rule 17-3.121(13) , Florida Administrative Code, related to dissolved oxygen parameters which would be involved in the installation of a canal known as the S-9 Canal to be located in Palm Beach County, Florida. That request was met by the Department of Environmental Regulation's Statement of Intent to Deny, leading to a request for formal hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department on May 26, 1983. On June 1, 1983, the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing in that matter. The variance request became D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-1741. Contemporaneous with the variance request that was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, was petitioner's request for necessary construction permits to install the S-9 Canal. Again, the Petitioner was informed of the agency's intent to deny that permit request. As a consequence, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to question the Department's policy decision. That request for formal hearing was made on June 23, 1983. Effective July 1, 1983, the Department asked the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing related to that permit request. The case related to the dredge and fill permit is D.O.A.H. Case No. 63-2132. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In the final hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of Richard Wheeliahn, Assistant Manager for Lake Worth Drainage District; John Adams, General Counsel for Lake Worth Drainage District; Mike Slaton, supervisory biologist with the United States Corp. of Engineers; William Winters, Lake Worth Drainage District's in-house engineer; Rebecca Serra, South Florida Water Management District's Water Management Engineer, who was accepted as an expert in water management engineering; Raleigh Griffis, Agricultural Agent with the United States Department of Agriculture, accepted as an expert in the agricultural practices found within the area of the proposed S-9 Canal; William E. Hill, Consulting Engineer for Petitioner, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and drainage design; and Robert D. Blackburn, consultant to Lake Worth Drainage District, accepted as an expert in freshwater ecology to include water quality and biology. Respondent called as witnesses Dan Garlick, Environmental Specialist for the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as expert in dredge and fill matters; Keith McCarron, Environmental Specialist for the Southeast Branch of the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as an expert in dredge and fill matters and Helen Setchfield, Technical Assistant to the Department's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting. In addition, Richard L. Miller, Rebecca Butts, Francis T. Kuschell, Donald King and Dan alley were public witnesses in favor of the proposed project. Rosa Druando and Sherry Cummings were public witnesses opposed to the project. Petitioner offered 45 exhibits which have been received. Respondent introduced two exhibits which were admitted. The public offered two composite exhibits which were admitted. SPECIFIC FACTS Lake Worth Drainage District is a governmental entity created by the Florida Legislature. The District's function is that of the control of water supply and elevation related to lands within its jurisdiction. Those areas in dispute in the present case are within that jurisdictional ambit. In this instance, Lake Worth Drainage District has proposed the construction of a drainage facility involving dredging and filling of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of material. In particular, Petitioner seeks necessary permits from Respondent to construct a canal known as the S-9 Canal, whose purpose would be to transport the flow of water from an agricultural operation north of the canal site. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 depicts the area in question with the north- south orange tape representing an unnamed drainage ditch or canal and the blue tape showing the proposed S-9 connecting it to the east-west orange tape line which is L23W. The primary type of water expected in the canal is stormwater; however, surface and groundwater will also be in the canal system at times. The agricultural operation is capable of discharging at a rate which would utilize 145 CFS of the potential capacity of the canal system contemplated for construction which ultimate capacity is 170 CFS. The proposed canal by its connection of the existing agricultural drainage ditch or canal and L23W, becomes part of a water transport system flowing to the Atlantic Ocean through the South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District canal network. The principal benefit of the construction of S-9 would be to create a uniform connection of water discharge from the agricultural operation into L23W. Secondarily, it would relieve periodic flooding of a residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch and northwest of the proposed S-9 Canal. It is not designed to receive direct water input from that residential area. Only the agricultural operation has been granted permits to discharge into the unnamed canal through two pumping stations to the east of that canal and as a result of the present permit request through S-9 and thus to L23W. Those persons living in the residential area west of the unnamed canal have not sought necessary permitting for discharge into the proposed S-9 System. Moreover, even if permits were granted to the residents, the S-9 system would only allow the addition of 25 CPS over and above the 145 which the agricultural operation has preempted. The 25 CPS would not satisfactorily address high water problems found in the residential area. A more particular description of the limited value of the project's benefit to the homeowners is that it protects against occasional flooding which occurs when the farm operation discharges into the unnamed canal, causing water incursion in the southeast corner of the residential area to the west of the unnamed canal. If the S-9 Canal is constructed, it will be built within an 80 foot right-of-way held by petitioner. The canal as depicted in petitioner's Exhibit 35 admitted into evidence is 40-45 feet wide, approximately 5-8 feet deep and is configured in a u-shape transversing an area of 7,730 feet. The applicants in this present proposal have added a vegetated iittoral zone on one side of the canal and it covers approximately 20 percent or 1.9 acres of the canal surface. This zone affords a limited amount of treatment of the water in the system. In this regard, approximately 30 percent of the nutrients found within the water flowing in the system would be expected to be taken up or absorbed in the vegetational zone, except in the months of August and September, when optimum retention time within the system will not be afforded to allow the littoral zone to uptake 30 percent of contaminants in the water. A 21 foot maintenance berm would be constructed on the east side of the canal and bleeder pipes would be installed to control water elevations in the adjacent wetlands. The 170 CFS volume mentioned before is the design capacity of the proposed system. At that volume, the flow velocity is less than 2.6 feet per second, a velocity at which the canal's structural integrity would be expected to continue, i.e., erosion will not occur. The 145 CFS expected from the agricultural operation pursuant to permits for discharge issued by the South Florida Water Management District would promote a flow velocity of approximately 2 feet per second. This farm activity is known as the DuBois farm. (Its permit from the South Florida Water Management District allowing the 145 CFS to be discharged into the unnamed drainage ditch or canal is not contingent upon the construction of S-9.) The configuration of the S-9 Canal has been brought about principally to advantage the Petitioner in obtaining a construction permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. The Corps had an interest in protecting that corridor of land over which it has jurisdiction which is adjacent to the S-9 Canal and is described as a wetland area. A consequence of this choice of design for S-9 is the typical 72 to 80 hour travel time of water introduced into the system providing some settling of pollutants and some assimilation of pollutants within the littoral zone of the canal discussed before. 10..Necessary permits have been obtained from South Florida Water Management District and the United States Corps of Engineers to allow the construction of the proposed project. The configuration of this project takes into account the special concerns of those two agencies. In this sequence of collateral permitting, South Florida Water Management District has been responsible for an examination of stormwater quality considerations in deciding to grant a permit to Petitioner. With the construction of S-9 and connection of the unnamed canal to S- 9 and thus to L23W, all the waters within that conveyance system become Class III waters of the state in keeping with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its associated rules of the Florida Administrative Code. In effect, this is a dredge and fill activity under the Respondent's jurisdiction found in Rule 17- 4.20, Florida Statutes. As such, it becomes a stationary installation which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution of waters of the state by discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as envisioned by Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. During the construction phase of the canal, water quality degradation can be controlled related to turbidity, transparency and other criteria. Upon connection of the S-9 Canal to L23W and the utilization of that system, problems will be experienced with dissolved oxygen levels and to a lesser extent, nutrients and total coliform. Oils and greases problems are possible though not probable. No other water quality impacts are expected after connection. In expectation of the difficulty in achieving compliance with Respondent's water quality standards related to dissolved oxygen, the Petitioner has sought a variance under Section 403.021, Florida Statutes. This request is necessary because the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed S-9 Canal, the unnamed canal or drainage ditch and L23W are not expected to uniformly exceed 5 mg/1. See Rule 17-3.121(13), Florida Administrative Code. The problem with dissolved oxygen in the unnamed canal and L23W and expected in the S-9 canal is not an enigma. This condition is prevalent in the South Florida area to include Palm Beach County, the site of the project. The water in the canals and drainage ditches in the region is frequently in violation of the standards related to dissolved oxygen, given the elevations of the land, climatic conditions, type of plant life, water temperature and constituents of the water. The addition of S-9 to the system would neither improve nor significantly degrade the quality of water related to the dissolved oxygen values for Class III waters, of which this proposed system is constituted. This finding acknowledges the fact that dissolved oxygen values in the unnamed canal are superior to L23W. Nonetheless, upon completion of S-9 and connection to the two other canals, no significant positive improvements of dissolved oxygen will be realized. Moreover, considering the fact that the installation of the S-9 Canal will stop the flooding on the southeast corner of the residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch or canal, an increased volume of water flowing into L23W at any given moment can be expected, compared to the present outfall primarily along the Florida Power and Light system road into L23W. This has significance related to the dissolved oxygen standard to the extent of an increased volume of water in which substandard dissolved oxygen levels are found being introduced into L23W. It is more significant related to nutrients and bacteriological quality of the water, in particular fecal coliform. While there is no reason to believe that the quality of cleansing of water involved in sheet flow into L23W related to nutrients and coliforms is remarkably better at present, given the sparse vegetation along the power-line road which leads to L23W, than would be the case with S-9 with littoral zone, the increased volume of cater being introduced at the connection of S-9 and L23W during times of peak discharge, can be expected to present greater quantities of nutrients and coliform. In essence, the treatment afforded by the littoral zone and the transport in the S-9 Canal, contrasted with the treatment afforded during the transport of waters by sheet flow along the relatively barren stretch of land adjacent to the power-line road is found to be comparable, and the differences relate only to volume of discharge. This difficulty with nutrients and coliform count has been confirmed by tests made in the unnamed canal showing excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform and the water treatment features of the S-9 Canal will not entirely remove these materials. Although the farming practices of the DuBois operation tend to alleviate some nutrient loading in the unnamed canal, the test results established that those practices do not entirely eliminate the introduction of those nutrient materials into the canal. Consequently, some problems related to the effects of nutrient loading on populations of flora and fauna in the proposed system can be expected. In the context of the variance request, alternatives to the construction of the S-9 Canal are here considered. The alternative to leave the circumstance as it now exists carries with it the risk of periodic flooding of the southeast corner of the residential property west of the unnamed canal. That area and the balance of the residential acreage are subject to flooding without regard for the agricultural operation to the east. To deal with the difficulty related to the elevated water table, rainfall events and the flooding due to farm operation, some persons who reside in that residential tract have employed their own pump systems and ditches and retention areas to combat problems related to the geography of their property. In addition, the property is protected to some extent from outside influences by the existence of a dike and associated ditch, which limit some off-property incursion of water and assists to an extent in the transport of water away from their property. Moreover, the DuBois farm operation recently has placed a barrier at the end of the unnamed canal which directs water south along the Florida Power and Light road into L23W. In addition, the farm management has held down the pump speed during a rain event to protect the residential area. Nonetheless, at times the dike in the southeast corner adjacent to the residential property has breached in heavy rain events. As an alternative, the installation of S-9 would be only partially effective in alleviating the adverse conditions in the residential area west of the unnamed canal. It principally helps the DuBois farm operation. The relief afforded the residents would be the cessation of flooding caused by the operation of the farm pumps to the east as they breach the area in the southeast corner of the residential property, the future possibility of introducing as much as 25 CFS into the S-9 System subject to appropriate permits and the more tenuous possibility that the farm operation and the residential area could share the remaining 145 CPS capacity in the proposed system. The latter point isn't tenable from an examination of testimony at hearing. First, because the farmer wishes to conserve fertilizer and to maintain the moisture gradient and he does this by pumping off stormwater in a rainfall event, which events are most prevalent during his agricultural season. Secondly, the residential area is most in need of relief when the farmer is. Finally, the question of necessary permits to share capacity is unclear. Other alternatives related to a more comprehensive protection of the residential area by diking, a direct connection canal system to L23W from the unnamed canal, or dispersed sheet flow through the wetland area adjacent to the proposed S-9 Canal are not viable either for reason of design infirmity or impediments from other permitting agencies or inadequate property rights. Therefore, the viable choices are to either leave the property as it now stands or grant a permit to allow the construction of S-9. Between the remaining choices, no particular advantage is gained by the construction of this project. Dissolved oxygen problems in L23W, the receiving body of water, will not improve with the S-9 construction in a significant way and given the increased volume of discharge into L23W promoted by this construction are made worse. Nothing in the construction is so compelling to cause the exercise of the Respondent's discretion in favor of the grant of a variance related to dissolved oxygen values. 16..In examining the variance request by affording deference to Petitioner's regulatory responsibility, the need of the Lake Worth Drainage District to provide relief to those residents who are paying for drainage services is conceded. To that end, the proposed project does provide a certain amount of relief but it does not have as its primary emphasis purported assistance to those residents. As often stated, its principal benefit is to the DuBois farm operation. Left unresolved is the major source of suffering which is the lay of the land, a source which has prevailed from the beginning of the utilization of that property on the part of the residents. Plainly stated, much of the residential area was from the beginning and continues to be under water. The removal of the farm flooding and the future possibility of introducing a small increment of discharge into the S-9 system from the residential area subject to necessary permitting does not modify the characterization of this project as being one primarily for the farmer and to a much lesser extent for the residents. On this occasion, Petitioner's choice to fulfill its change is not persuasive enough to create special permission to violate the dissolved oxygen standard. In summary, a variance from the dissolved oxygen standard for Class III waters is not indicated. On the question of the permit application, in addition to failing to give reasonable assurances related to dissolved oxygen, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily address the problems with nutrients and coliforms. Other water quality standards have been satisfactorily addressed. Again, most of the water that will be introduced into the proposed system shall be stormwater; however, there will be other water components in the system constituted of surface water an groundwater, which also carry nutrients arid bacteriological deposits. Surface and groundwater are involved, given the level of elevations in the area, the depths of the unnamed canal, S-9 Canal and L23W and the fact that the DuBois farm operation can extract waters from the E-l Canal to the east of the farm properties as well as discharge water into that canal. It will not always be possible to distinguish whether the water in the proposed system is stormwater, groundwater or surface water. Consequently, South Florida Water Management's permitting related to stormwater is not definitive.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "for an improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the development order issued by Polk County for Robert Crowder's development known as Paradise Country Estates complies with Chapter 380, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Department of Community Affairs' Petition for Appeal of Development Order (the DCA Petition) alleges that the development order is contrary to Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan for the following reasons: Paragraph 11 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the 1985 Plan. Policy 9 states: "Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which will not reduce the recharge capabilities." Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 10, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE. Policy 10 states: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Paragraph 13 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Respectively, these policies state: 11. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Paragraph 14 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration" and also states: The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Paragraph 15 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the following section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships": The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. Paragraph 16 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan: "Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality." Paragraph 17 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. Paragraph 19 1/ of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code). 2/ Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Paragraph 21 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-2(4) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. 3/ Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Paragraph 22 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 6-2(3)(a) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Project and Location. The project site is on Dean Still Road in Polk County, approximately 2 miles west of State Road 33. It is approximately 6 and 1/2 miles from Polk City and 15 miles from the City of Lakeland. The proposed project is comprised of 356 lots on approximately 1280 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3.6 acres. Although the average lot size varies, the project was reviewed under the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) criteria for rural development which requires that at least 90% of the lots be at least 2 acres in size (excluding jurisdictional wetlands), and 10% of the lots be at least 1 acre (excluding jurisdictional wetlands). The site has been zoned Rural Conservation under Polk County's Zoning Code for approximately 12 years. This designation allows a density up to 1 unit per acre. Individual water wells and on-site waste disposal systems (septic tanks) will be utilized for each home. There are no water or sewer extensions proposed for the site or for adjacent areas by any governmental entity. Access to the site from Polk City is along Dean Still Road, which is unpaved at this time. The County has plans to pave it in the near future. Of the 1280 acres comprising the project site, 362 acres have been claimed as jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 642 acres have been mapped within the 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 51 of the lots platted in the project are entirely within the FEMA 100- year flood plain. Several other lots contain large portions within FEMA 100- year flood plain. Despite the significant amount of wetlands and floodplains on the site, the project is designed so that no net loss will occur in the floodplains and less than 1% (.59%) of the jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by development. Impervious conditions on the site will only increase by 2.8% after development. All structures will be set at or above the 100 year flood elevation, as calculated by the project engineers, and will be constructed in accordance with the County's flood protection standards. The project is designed so that post-development runoff is less than pre-development runoff and post-development drainage basins conform to pre-development drainage basins. Existing drainage patterns for the site are designed to be maintained. The property comprising the project has been used through the years for a variety agricultural purposes, including harvesting watermelons, soybeans, corn, and silage. It has been drained and ditched to facilitate these activities. It is currently being used for grazing cattle. A sod farm is located to the south of the property. Additional cattle grazing lands run south from there to Polk City. To the north of the site are ranchlands which run to the border of the Withlacoochee Wildlife Area. Immediately to the west of the site are 20-30 scattered mobile homes and additional ranchlands in a subdivision known as Evans Acres. This subdivision was initially approved by DCA in 1983, and was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres. The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Apparently, individuals have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A few of the original lots are used for both residential and ranching purposes. Including the large and small lots, there are approximately 163 lots on the property comprising Evans Acres. On the property directly to the east of the site are approximately 16 mobile homes along Melody Lane. These existing homesite numbers are small and scattered when compared to the 356 lots proposed for Paradise Country Estates. Approximately 120 families live in the general vicinity of the proposed project. The Green Swamp. The project is within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The site is within the drainage basin of the Withlacoochee River, which has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and is approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Green Swamp ACSC was designated by the Legislature. Chapter 79- 73, 380.0551, Florida Statutes (1991). It was the second area to be designated and now is one of only four areas in the State retaining this designation. The Green Swamp was designated because the area's natural resources were considered to be of regional and statewide importance and because of concerns that uncoordinated development could endanger these resources. The Green Swamp is a regionally significant area for recharge of the Floridan Aquifer. The Green Swamp is unique because the top of the Floridan Aquifer is at or near the surface over much of the area. This creates what is known as the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. The potentiometric high pressurizes the Floridan Aquifer, permitting it to be used for drinking water wells. The Florida Aquifer serves as the principal source of drinking water for central Florida. It supplies the entire State with about 48 percent of its ground water supply. The potentiometric high also serves to hold back salt water intrusion into the Floridan. Recharge is important in maintaining the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. Although the Green Swamp has been characterized as a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer, the actual recharge capabilities of the Green Swamp vary considerably throughout the region. Some areas within the Green Swamp, such as the high, dry, sandy ridge on the eastern boundary of the Green Swamp clearly are high recharge areas. In some areas, the Floridan Aquifer rises essentially to the ground surface, with no confining layer above it. In those areas, a considerable amount of surface water filters into the Floridan Aquifer. In other areas, including in the vicinity of the project site, recharge capability is considerably less. See "G. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, (3) Ground Water Recharge." The head waters of several rivers, including the Withlacoochee River, are in the Green Swamp. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Polk County Ordinance 85-08 (Ordinance 85-08), is referred to as Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan, or the 1985 plan. It includes a Land Use Element (LUE) and a Conservation Element. The Land Use Element. The 1985 Plan is a "policy plan." As a "policy plan," the LUE does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. The different parts of the plan must be considered together to ascertain their meaning. As stated in the Foreward to the LUE: The Policy Plan is a flexible and realistic guide to future public decisions. Existing conditions are first determined and analyzed. Then, community goals are identified providing a process of finding out where we are and where we want to go. * * * . . .. The challenge is to determine the means of achieving the identified community goals at minimal cost and the least possible hardship on any segment of our society. Under the policies planning process this is accomplished by developing all possible alternative courses of action that will advance the community toward the desire goal. The policies are then a general statement of purpose and outlining broad principles toward which the plan is guided in the implementation stage. A policy plan does not detail specific actions or locations on a map. Rather it provides a broad framework within which day-to-day decisions are made in a consistent manner toward an identified goal. The ultimate product of those community goals will be the heritage of Polk County's future. At 4-2, the LUE discusses the need to give attention to "the proper distribution of population densities in keeping with sound planning practices, the physical capabilities of the land, and the relationship of the population and housing densities to existing or proposed transportation facilities and other community services." It then speaks to "Retention of Open Spaces": A second potential problem to be faced, as urban growth continues, is the potential loss of the open space characteristics that now contribute substantially to its desirability as a community in which to live and visit. To a large extent, the desirable characteristics are provided by extensive agricultural areas. Such uses are compatible with residential and other types of urban land uses and should be encouraged to remain to the maximum extent possible. Desirable open space is also presently provided by . . . wetland areas not suited for urban development. By encouraging such areas to remain in their present condition, a substantial amount of open space can be retained to provide the needed visual relief and openness necessary within a highly urbanized community. At 4-5, discussing "Retention of Unique Agricultural Lands," the LUE states that cattle raising and field crops are subject to potential intrusion by urban development and states: "The development of planning techniques, which will encourage the retention of important agricultural lands and provide for orderly urban development, thus becomes a matter of considerable importance." The Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) of the LUE starting at 5-1 include the following: General Goal: To maintain productive and mutually compatible use of lands and waters within Polk County in a manner consistent with the economic, physical and social needs, capabilities, and desires of Polk County and its citizens. Objective I - Agricultural Uses: To ensure that a sufficient quantity of appropriate lands are available and protected for productive agricultural uses necessary to a sound economic base. Policies: * * * 2. Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. * * * 5. Provide all possible incentives for the retention of lands into agricultural production. * * * Objective III - Natural Resources Minimize adverse impacts of development on valuable natural resources including the protection of water quality and quantity in surface and ground waters. Policies: * * * 2. The subdivision and platting of land shall be permitted in accordance with the zoning district applied to the property and in compliance with the Polk County Subdivision Regulations and Flood Protection/Surface Water Management Ordinance. * * * Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not adversely affect the natural flow regime or the natural recharge capabilities of the site. Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not result in the siltation of wetlands or reduce the natural retention and filtering capabilities of wetlands. Site alteration activities should provide for water retention and settling facilities; should maintain an overall site runoff equivalent to the natural flow regime prior to alteration and should maintain a runoff rate which does not cause erosion. * * * Storm water runoff should be released into the wetlands in a manner approximating the natural flow regime. Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which well not reduce the recharge capabilities. Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. Objective IV - Residential Areas To ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately located lands are available for the development and maintenance of residential areas that can be efficiently and effectively provided with necessary public facilities and services. Policies: Promote and encourage the provision of a wide range of housing opportunities, in appropriate locations, to permit a choice of housing types to suit the particular needs of all citizens. Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. * * * Encourage new residential development that can be effectively served by the existing transportation facilities. Promote new residential development in non-urban areas, that is properly designed to combine with future adjacent development, to create a neighborhood of sufficient size to facilitate the efficient and effective provision of all necessary public facilities and services. Part VI of the LUE, entitled "Alternate Approaches," discusses the pros and cons of different concepts for planning and managing of growth. It settles on a "Resource-Responsive Concept" as the preferred growth alternative. This concept holds in part: Wherever possible, future growth should be encouraged to take place in or near established urbanized areas. Scattered growth incapable of functioning as meaningful self-contained communities should be discouraged. And it is preferable that the urbanizing area, as it extends over extensive areas within the County, not be developed in one continuous, monotonous maze of residential, commercial, and industrial uses - but that there be open space provided at appropriate intervals so as to provide visual relief and a sense of scale to the overall urban community. Such open space areas can be productively utilized for agricultural and conservation purposes or recreation areas, public facilities and services required. It is proposed that the most appropriate urban growth concept to meet such guide-lines and the policy statements of this land use plan be a resource-responsive growth concept. Under this concept, urban growth and development will be guided and encouraged with respect to its responsiveness to the natural and human resource capabilities of the County. Within any given area of the County, the resources will be careful evaluated in terms of their capability to support growth, and the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide a balance with such resources. Prime resources to be considered are as follows: Natural Resources Topography and soil conditions Vegetation and tree cover Wildlife habitats present Drainage characteristics; relationship to rivers and lakes Natural water supply capabilities General aesthetic qualities Human Resources Transportation facilities (roads, railroads, airports) Available water supply and sewage facilities Community facilities, such as schools, parks, libraries Protective services, such as fire and police Established land uses within the area Economic conditions and potentials. Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation," states: "Initial implementation of a Comprehensive Plan and initiation of the continuing planning process for growth management requires the establishment of principals and standards for measurement of proposed activities against the adopted policies of the community." It includes a section entitled "Principles and Standards for the Control and Distribution of Population Densities and Structural/Development Intensity," which provides in part: All Types of Urban Development: * * * Each new development or land use should follow sound land planning principles to maximize site advantages, avoiding when possible, adverse impacts on the natural resources and hazards to health, safety, or general welfare. * * * Residential Development: Low-density single-family development (1-4 units/acre), other than rural residences related to agricultural operations, shall be located in areas capable of being developed into stable, cohesive neighborhoods. In a section entitled "Legal Requirements of Implementation," it states that "all actions taken by local government, whether in the form of permitting private development to occur or in the provision of public facilities and services, are required to be fully consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The plan, once adopted, must occupy a central position in the consideration of all proposed development." In another section, entitled "Coordination with Other Plan Elements," it states that the "land use element cannot be implemented alone [but] must be coordinated with the [other elements]." In another section, entitled "Needed Improvements in the Zoning Ordinance," it is recognized that "it will be essential that a thorough review of the zoning ordinance be undertaken and that the ordinance be revised as appropriate to achieve consistency with overall planning objectives." It acknowledges that there were "major identified deficiencies in the current zoning regulations" and advises that "the following needs among others should be addressed as a minimum in making revisions to the zoning ordinance": "Revision of the Density Requirement in Residential Districts." Despite the admonitions in the 1985 Plan, to date there has been no revision of the land use classifications, densities, or intensities in the County's zoning code. As before the 1985 Plan was adopted, zoning in the Green Swamp ACSC remains Rural Conservation (RC) and allows up to one unit per acre residential development. The Conservation Element. Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan is a "Summary of Natural Resources." At 2-18, there appears a section entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp, as well as other natural resources in the County, as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration." At 2-19, as amended by Ordinance 85-08, this element of the comprehensive plan also states: This area comprises the hydrologic heartland of Central Florida and contains the headwaters of the Withlacoochee, Hillsborough, Peace and Oklawaha Rivers. The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Part IV of the Conservation Element is a "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships." Starting at 4-2, it addresses the following: Displacement . . .. Cities in Polk County have historically developed on the ridges and the urbanized areas are spreading outward rapidly into the prime citrus lands and the "marginal" (flood prone) lands. There is considerable concern about urban development in wetland soils and flood prone areas. The double barreled concern for development in wetland soils and wetland areas is that they might well serve valuable natural functions and the private and public problems created by development subjected to flood damages. This property damage promotes public pressure for drainage in wet areas. The issue in wetland drainage and flood control is the jeopardy of natural functions that wetlands and water fluctuations provide in natural systems and flood damage costs. . . . [C]oncern for the growing demand for uplands development which steadily displaces [good pasture land] . . . relate[s] to the use of good pasture land for development. Density The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. * * * Water * * * Another area of concern relates to the draw down and recha[r]ge of the Floridan Aquifer and is claimed to be a rational concern of an area much larger than Polk County. * * * Pollution Environmental pollution, as it relates to water, is a major local concern. * * * Water pollution is concerned because of its effects on recreation and tourism. Water degradation and the pollution of lakes and rivers tends to remove the intangible value that Polk County enjoys in thee form of its surface water resources. * * * Also, the related cost issues of municipal sewage treatment and disposal, effluent disposal techniques, septic tank useage are environmentally economic choices to be made by the public. Discussing the topic, "Preservation and Management," starting at 4-4, Part IV of the Conservation Element states in part: Many issues relate to what, how, or when something should be conserved. * * * Lakes, rivers and canals of the county are of concern as sources of flooding and as resources for flood control, if properly managed. Flood prone areas surrounding surface water have been identified for much of the county. These water bodies are also legitimate concerns as the habitat for fish and other wildlife that provide a significant value in their own right. The area of these water bodies are also special scenic and recreational values that contribute to tourism and development. Part V of the Conservation Element is where the "Goals, Objectives and Policies" are found. It start with some general observations, including in part: . . .. It can be expected, therefore, that the natural environment of the county will continue to undergo modification of one type or another in response to the needs of people. . . . The inventory of total space will, therefore, diminish as these changes take place, resulting in corresponding losses within particular categories of natural resources. What is important is that no critical loss of impairment of a natural resource take place; that development be managed so as to create minimum disturbance of the remaining natural resource systems; and that there be compensation replenishments of resources wherever possible. It then lists a General Goal and several resource-specific objectives and policies: General Goal: Maintain, protect, develop and utilized the natural resources in a manner that will balance and replenish the natural ecological systems and will best serve and promote the desired quality of life for Polk County resident, present and future. * * * Water Resource Objective: To conserve and protect the quality and quantity of water resources through proper management. * * * 6. Identify and protect significant acquifer [sic] recharge areas for maximum recharge capability and protect the water available for aquifer recharge. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Protect the functions of the Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality. Protect the water retention and biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands. Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins. Rare and Unique Natural Resource Objective: To conserve and protect, through proper resources management, areas having unique natural characteristics and particularly sensitive environmental balance. * * * Policies: Identify all significant areas in Polk County deemed to have unique natural resource characteristics. Encourage proper management of unique wetland areas of the County as a vital water resource. Encourage a proper system for control of development in flood prone and wetland areas to regulate alternation [sic] of the natural system of water retention and storage during periods of heavy rainfall. Preserve and protect, to the maximum extent possible, all delineated areas having valuable unique resource characteristics. Part V of the Conservation Element concludes with a "Summary," which states in part: The objectives and policies set forth above should not be considered as controls to be rigidly applied in every instance of decision-making dealing with the natural environment. Rather, in dealing with resource conservation issues, guidance is preferable to control. . . . A number of potential implementation actions and programs, presented in the following part, will further assist in establishing the direction and scope of conservation activities in the County. Part VI of the Conservation Element is entitled "Implementation." While acknowledging at 6-1 that Polk County cannot establish an implementation program unilaterally, without regard to the co-responsibilities of other governmental authorities at the regional state and federal levels, it states at 6-2 that Polk County "can and should": Utilize the general objectives and policies established by this Element as considerations in all decision making concerning the use and improvement of land within the County. * * * 3. Utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the policies and implementation controls of other elements of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, and those of other governmental entities having jurisdiction, to further the conservation of natural resources. Starting at 6-3, Part VI discusses the Conservation Element's "Relationship to Other Plans." At 6-4, after stating that the Conservation Element will be largely implemented through the policies and programs of other comprehensive plan elements, Part VI provides: Land Use Element - This element will provide the overall framework for conservation [sic] potentialities through the manner in which land uses are distributed, arranged, and interrelated throughout Polk County. Policies and implementation programs of this element will determine the degree to which new development is properly related to soil types and capabilities, natural habitats, flood prone areas, wetlands and unique resource areas of the County. Land regulatory controls such as zoning, subdivision regulations and development impact reviews provide the basic tools for implementation of the policies of the Land Use Element. Starting at 6-5, Part VI discusses "Guidelines for Implementation." At 6-5, it points out: The nature of conservation policy, being of such broad application and diversity of interest, requires that its effective implementation utilize many approaches, techniques and procedures. Its application is carried out, for the most part, in an indirect way as a by-product of other more direct decisions and actions relation to the development and growth of the County. It is essential, therefore, that Polk County draw upon all possible alternative mechanisms and techniques which will lead to the effective conservation of its natural resource systems. Among the various approaches which Polk County may utilize to further its conservation objectives are the following. * * * Influence in the allocation of resources to achieve the objectives of the conservation plan. Control of events which determine resources allocation in keeping with the conservation plan. * * * Specific procedures and techniques which may be utilized to facilitate the implementation process include the following. * * * 7. Protect natural water bodies and adjacent wetland areas through the regulation of development densities and proper management of stormwater runoff. This would require a cooperative effort with the Water Management Districts in identifying flood plains for various flood frequencies. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code was enacted as Ordinance 81-28 and was amended by Ordinance 85-07. Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Land Use, Density and Intensity. DCA alleges that the land use, density and intensity of the development Crowder proposes for the site is inconsistent with: (1) the section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships"; (2) a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources"; (3) Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE; and (4) Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE. 6/ As previously stated, the 1985 Plan is a policy plan that does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. Crowder's Paradise Country Estates is consistent with the County's Zoning Code, which has not changed since before the 1985 plan, and Zoning Map. The development was not otherwise reviewed for land use, density or intensity. But it is clear that the 1985 plan does not condone exclusive resort to the zoning code to determine the appropriateness of the land use, density and intensity for development in the Green Swamp ACSC. See, especially, the section entitled "Density" in Part IV of the Conservation Element of the Plan. In the Green Swamp ACSC, especially, reference must also be made to the Plan itself. See Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation." It is not found that all residential use on the Crowder property would be, in itself, inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. But, taking into consideration all of its land use, density and intensity provisions, it must be found that the development order issued in this case, especially at its level of density and intensity and especially in the manner of its issuance, is inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. The crux of the problem with this development, like others in the Green Swamp ACSC already permitted by County development orders, is that, first, the 1985 comprehensive plan and the County zoning regulations in place at the time were inadequate and, second, the steps envisioned in the plan to make them adequate have not been taken. For the plan and the zoning regulations to be adequate, and for a development order for a project in the Green Swamp ACSC in Polk County to be consistent with the 1985 comprehensive plan, either: (1) the plan must be amended to map land use classifications, densities and intensities of development in the Green Swamp ACSC; (2) the zoning code must be amended as envisioned in the comprehensive plan for the Green Swamp ACSC; or (3) the County must evaluate development orders for projects in the Green Swamp ACSC on a case- by-case basis for consistency with the comprehensive plan. None of these three possibilities happened in this case. 7/ Flood Plain Delineation. Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the Crowder development violates Policy 10 of Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Specifically, it is alleged that the use of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site, and the failure to perform a detailed study, did not comply with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Other allegations in the DCA Petition also implicate the delineation of the flood prone areas on the site. See, (5) Ground and Surface Water Quality, below. A FEMA "A" zone is the zone depicting the area determined by FEMA to be flood prone. In this context, FEMA defines a "flood prone" area as an area flooded in a 100-year, 24-hour storm. At the time Polk County reviewed the Crowder project for approval of the roadway and construction drainage plans, FEMA was requiring that a detailed study be performed to delineate the flood prone area. Polk County apparently was not aware of this requirement and was not enforcing it. Nor, apparently, was Crowder's engineer aware of it. In any event, Crowder did not have a detailed study performed to delineate the flood prone area on the site, and the County did not require it. In approximately March, 1992, Polk County received a written communication from FEMA advising of the requirement for a detailed study of the flood prone area in the case of developments like Crowder's. Polk County now requires compliance with this FEMA requirement. Crowder did not rely simply on the FEMA undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site. Crowder's engineers used the existing undetailed FEMA maps as a starting point for determining base flood elevations. The engineers digitized the areas which had been designated as flood prone on the FEMA panels. The engineer then overlayed the digitized FEMA map with the on- site wetlands survey of the property, which had been field-staked and field- shot. Topographical field shots of the property which had been conducted throughout the site at one foot intervals were also overlayed on the digitized FEMA map. In addition, the engineer took into consideration mapped wetlands soils and compared flooding conditions which had occurred on adjacent property to assess whether all areas actually prone to flooding had been characterized as flood prone on the FEMA map. The methodology used by the project engineers was based on sound engineering practices. Nonetheless, it does not qualify as a "detailed study" as far as FEMA is concerned. A "detailed study" would include the application of a computer program that would "route" hypothetical flood waters onto and through the property to ascertain flood elevations in different stages of the hypothetical flood. It is not possible to determine how a detailed study would change the delineation of the flood prone area in Crowder's proposal. The total area of flood prone area could either increase or decrease; it could increase in some places and decrease in others. As it is, several of the lots platted in the Crowder development would be entirely within both the FEMA undetailed "A" zone and the flood prone area mapped by Crowder's engineers. Ground Water Recharge. DCA alleges that platting Paradise Country Estates will adversely impact recharge of the Floridan Aquifer, contrary to Policy 9 and 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. In the vicinity of the project site, the Floridan Aquifer comes to within 35 feet approximately of the ground surface. Above the Floridan Aquifer is a shallow aquifer, which rises to within approximately 12 inches of the surface. There is a layer of clastic soils (sand and clay) between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer. This confining layer slows the rate of recharge to the Floridan. As a result, the project site is in an area having low, or even very low, to moderate recharge capabilities, at best. USGS Professional Paper 1403-E, which was released in 1990, uses groundwater modelling to quantify recharge rates, instead of using qualitative terms such as "low," or "poor," "moderate" and "high" to describe recharge capabilities. USGS Professional paper 1403-E reports that many areas in the Green Swamp previously labeled as good, moderate or high recharge areas are actually capable of only recharging at rates of 3 to 4 inches per year. The subject property appears to be in the 2 to 3 inch range per year for recharge according to USGS Professional Paper 1403-E. Only three known sample soil borings have been taken on the project site. As a result, the extent of permeability and overall thickness of the confining layer between the surficial and Floridan aquifers is not certain. But there is no reason to believe that there are any karst features or other geologic faults in the area that would allow for direct connections between the surficial and Floridan aquifers. The soil borings that have been taken on the site verify the various geological surveys and studies describing the recharge capabilities in the area. Due to the site's limited capabilities as a recharge area, it is unlikely that the platting of this site will result in any significant reduction in its natural recharge rate. The project is not inconsistent with Policy 9 or 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Individual Water Well Use. DCA alleges that the planned use of individual water wells in Crowder's Paradise Country Estates will impact the quantity of the Floridan Aquifer (and the surficial aquifer) contrary to Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. The potentiometric level of the Floridan Aquifer protects the Floridan Aquifer from salt-water intrusion. Significant de-watering of the aquifer caused by large municipal or industrial wells extracting a high volume of water from the aquifer at an intense rate can lower the potentiometric pressure, thus increasing the potential for salt-water intrusion into the aquifer. (Furthermore, the lowered potentiometric pressure creates a hydraulic gradient which encourages surface waters to percolate downward at a faster rate due to the decreased pressure in the Floridan Aquifer. See the preceding sections on Ground Water Recharge and the following section on Ground and Surface Water Quality.) Large municipal, industrial or agricultural wells which exceed 6 inches in diameter must obtain consumptive use permits from the SWFWMD. The Water Management District takes into account what the District determines to be a safe yield per acre when issuing a consumptive use permit. Small, residential wells are not subject to this permitting process as their impacts are much smaller and less intense, and not a concern with regard to their effect on the potentiometric pressure. For this reason, some coastal areas have begun using smaller, individual wells as an alternative to larger municipal wells. The Floridan Aquifer is replenishing itself fast enough for residential wells not to "de-water" or "draw down" the aquifer's supply of ground water. Residential wells do not lower the potentiometric pressure of the Floridan to a significant degree. Nor would they affect the normal supply of ground water, or contribute to salt-water intrusion. Pumping tests performed within two to three miles west of the project site which utilized several residential-size wells support the foregoing conclusions. For these reasons, it is found that the development will not adversely impact the normal supply of ground water and thus will not interfere with the functions of the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer, including its protection against salt-water intrusion. Since the water wells would pump only from the Floridan Aquifer, they would not impact the supply of surface water. In regard to the use of water wells, the project is not inconsistent with Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or with Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Ground and Surface Water Quality. DCA alleges that Paradise Country Estates will result in unacceptable contamination of the Floridan Aquifer, the surficial aquifer, and the surface water (particularly the Withlacoochee River) contrary to Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the use of individual on-site disposal systems (OSDS), or septic tank systems, in violation of Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code), 8/ in particular, will be part of the cause of the unacceptable contamination (other causes being from lawn and garden maintenance and automotive wastes.) On-Site Disposal Systems. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth requirements for the use of on-site waste disposal, or septic tank, systems in the State of Florida. That chapter, which is administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") through local health departments, provides construction standards for the installation of on-site waste disposal systems. The septic tank serves as a holding tank designed to separate solids and floatable materials and allows anaerobic digestion of organic materials. The remaining effluent exits the tank into the soil infiltrative process, which is referred to as the drainfield. The drainfield is composed of gravel placed around perforated pipes, which are designed to evenly distribute and release the effluent into soil material where the effluent undergoes aerobic digestion. Eventually, any constituents remaining in the effluent which have not been absorbed by the root zone or otherwise decomposed reach the subsurface waters which are referred to as the surficial water table. Each individual lot owner will be required to obtain a permit from the local health department prior to installing an on-site waste disposal system. Prior to issuing a permit, HRS inspects each site to assess soil limitations and to conduct a percolation test to determine the seasonal high water table for the site. Because the soils on the site are severely limited for filtration purposes and the high water table is only 10 to 12 inches below the surface, individual lot owners will be required to mound their on-site waste disposal systems to overcome these limitations. Although the fill used to mound the systems will be comprised of suitable soils, it is possible that the foreign soils will absorb moisture from the existing soils on this site, a phenomenon referred to as capillary fringe affect. This phenomenon can cause those portions of the fill which come in direct contact with the existing soils on the site to lose their filtration capabilities. Unless the fill becomes saturated from other sources, it is unlikely that capillary fringe affect will render the filtration process ineffective. The effects of capillary fringe affect can be lessened by mixing fill with soils found on the site, a practice undertaken by contractors when installing on-site waste disposal systems. In addition, increasing the amount of fill used to mound the system would decrease the potential affects of this phenomenon. 9/ Floridan Aquifer Water Quality. In some areas of the Green Swamp, the Floridan Aquifer is actually considered a surficial aquifer since no confining layers of soil or clay separate the subsurface water from the Floridan Aquifer. These areas would typically be characterized as areas with high recharge capabilities (or high potential for contamination). However, throughout the project site, a confining layer exists which is composed of clayey sands which have a very low permeability. Therefore, there is relatively little interaction between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer on this particular site. For this reason, the use of individual on-site waste disposal systems on this site would pose no significant risk to the water quality of the Floridan Aquifer. Surficial Aquifer and Surface Water Quality.-- As for the surficial aquifer and surface water quality, Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires on-site waste disposal systems be located at least 75 feet from waterbodies. Normally, and when the systems are operating properly, this assures that adequate filtration and decomposition occurs before wastewater reaches surface waters on or near the site. But, in the case of the Crowder proposal, it is necessary to consider that at least some of the mounded systems will be subjected to flooding and will become saturated. Even based on the analysis by Crowder's engineers, 51 of the lots in Paradise Country Estates are entirely flood prone; there is no place to put an OSDS on those lots that is not flood prone. If a "detailed study" had been done, it is possible that more lots would be entirely within the flood hazard zone. Other lots not entirely within the flood zone may not be able to accommodate an OSDS on the part of the lot not within the flood zone. If the OSDS mound is saturated during flood conditions, the system will fail, and untreated waste, or inadequately treated waste, will be released into the surface flood waters. This waste water will move laterally across the project site. Roots may absorb some nitrates or other organic compounds; 10/ otherwise, the waste water and its constituents will remain in the surface water. Lateral movement across the site generally will be slow, as the site is relatively flat. Some of the waste water and its constituents will get into the surficial aquifer. There are ditches or canals alongside and on the site that will direct the rest of the surface water into Pony Creek and other tributories of the Withlacoochee River, an Outstanding Florida Water approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a dredge and fill permit for the project's road network's impact on wetlands on the site. But it did not pass on the use of OSDS in the individual lots. It also erroneously referred to the Withlacoochee as a natural Class III, instead of an Outstanding Florida Water. See F.A.C. Rule 17-302.700(9)(i). The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued a surface water management permit for the project. In evaluating a permit application, SWFWMD considers surface water quality. But the focus of SWFWMD's inquiry is the pre- and post-development peak flows. Also, when it considers water quality, SWFWMD considers the impact of site alteration on water quality, not the impact of the use of OSDS on the site. In addition, the Crowder project was reviewed under special criteria for low-density rural subdivisions that do not require the submission of as much information. It was not clear from the evidence precisely how SWFMD evaluates water quality under those criteria. For these reasons, based on the evidence, it cannot be said that the Crowder project's OSDS will be meet the minimum standard of being "located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding," as required by Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, or that the project will "protect the normal . . . quality of ground and surface water . . . necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern," as required by Policy 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Finally, the project will not "protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality," as required by Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Other Appeal Issues. Except as set forth above, the Crowder development did not violate the 1985 comprehensive plan and Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code provisions cited in the DCA Petition. Agency Practice - Other Development in the Area. As previously described, Evans Acres, to the west of the Crowder site, was approved by DCA in 1983. (See Finding 10, above.) As approved, it was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres (a density of one unit per 27 acres). The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Unbeknownst to the DCA, individuals apparently have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A proposed development known as Turkey Creek is located between the project site and Evans Acres. Turkey Creek is comprised of approximately 57 lots on 170 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3 acres. The physical characteristics of the Turkey Creek property, including the abundance of wetlands and floodplains, are essentially the same as the proposed project site. DCA appealed Turkey Creek in June of 1992. However, in that case, the County had been approximately two years late in rendering the Turkey Creek development order to the DCA. Meanwhile, the developer incurred development expenses and already had constructed roads and drainage facilities for the development. The developer, the County and DCA executed a settlement agreement which allows the development to proceed according to the original construction plans, but requires homeowners to install dual septic tank systems and have their septic tanks cleaned and inspected every three years. Several other developments, which are in the general vicinity of the project site and have many of the same physical characteristics, including Yearling Trace and Buck Hill, have been appealed by DCA. Yearling Trace is comprised of 108 units on approximately 544 acres. Buck Hill is comprised of 55 units on approximately 214 acres. Those projects were appealed by DCA in June and April, 1992. In some of these cases, the County did not timely render development orders to DCA in a timely manner. In the case of Buck Hill, the DCA had been mailed an unapproved copy of development plans in October, 1990; in early 1992, DCA contacted the County to inquire, as no County-approved development plans ever had been sent to the DCA. In many of these cases, substantial development expenses had been incurred; in some cases, roads and drainage facilities already had been constructed. DCA decided to settle the pending appeals in which the County was late rendering the development order, and in which the developer already had constructed roads and drainage facilities, consistent with the Turkey Creek settlement. In cases where the County was late rendering the development order, but the developer had not already constructed roads and drainage facilities, the DCA determined to settle not only for stipulations to upgrade the OSDS, as in the Turkey Creek settlement, but also for requirements that a "detailed" flood zone study be done, in accordance with the FEMA requirements. Prior to the DCA appeal, Crowder had expended approximately $31,000 in permit fees. In addition, he has incurred development costs, primarily for engineering fees and related services. Through the time of the final hearing, he had spent approximately $99,000 on engineering fees and services. (The evidence was not clear how much had been incurred by the time of the DCA appeal.) However, the County was not late in rendering the Crowder development order, and Crowder has not constructed roads or drainage facilities. In view of the different circumstances in Crowder's case, DCA's prior agency practices do not compel that Crowder's development be treated in the same manner, i.e., be settled on the same terms, as the Turkey Creek and the others. DCA has argued that FLWAC's Final Order in the case of Dept. of Community Affairs v. Narbi International Company, Inc. and Lake County, 14 FALR 3223 (1992), controls this case and requires the Crowder development order to be overturned on appeal. Narbi involved development Green Swamp ACSC, albeit in Lake County. Factually, there are many differences between Narbi and this case. The Narbi development order was a rezoning from agricultural with a residential density of up to one unit per five acres to a residential planned unit development (PUD) zoning with a density of one unit per 1.35 acres. Also, Lake County's comprehensive plan had an "urban containment policy," which DCA equated with its non-rule policy preventing "urban sprawl" or "leap-frog development." Thirdly, in Narbi, it was found that a geologic fault existed on the project site which allowed a direct connection from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer. Because of the factual differences, Narbi does not control the outcome of Crowder's case. Conditions for Approval. Based on the testimony of its witnesses, DCA has proposed that, notwithstanding its deficiencies, the Crowder project can be approved if its density is lowered to between one unit per ten acres and one unit per 20 acres. The rationale of DCA's witnesses seems to be that the proposed lower density, in and of itself, would cure at least the most significant of the deficiencies. Since the Crowder development order under review was for approval of particular road and drainage plans, the plans would have to be redrawn at the lower density and resubmitted for approval by the County subject to the final order to be entered in this case. It is not possible for the Commission to approve, on condition of lowered density, the plans that were the subject of the development order in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order rescinding and denying approval for the development order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of March, 1993.
