10-003351 Henry Ross vs. City Of Tarpon Springs And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, December 16, 2010.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove his substantial interests would be affected by the industrial wastewater facility permit. The City provided reasonable assurance it would meet all criteria applicable to its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

8HENRY ROSS, )

11)

12Petitioner, )

14)

15vs. )

17) OGC CASE NO. 10-1392

22CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS AND ) DOAH CASE NO. 10-3351

32DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

36PROTECTION, )

38)

39Respondents. )

41)

42FINAL ORDER

44On December 16, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") with the Division of

59Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") submitted a Recommended Order ("RO") to the

73Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or "Department") in the above

85captioned proceeding. A copy of the RO is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The RO

100indicates that copies were sent to the Petitioner, Henry Ross, pro se ("Petitioner"), and

116counsel for the Co-Respondents, City of Tarpon Springs ("City") and the Department.

130On December 27,2010, the Petitioner filed a "Motion for Abeyance Until Circuit Court

144Decision and Extension of Fifteen Day Exception Filing Rule," and the Respondent City

157filed an objection to the Petitioner's motion. On January 3, 2011, the Petitioner timely

171filed his "Exceptions to Recommended Order." On January 5, 2011, the Department

183issued an Order Denying Motion. 1 On January 13, 2011, the Department timely filed its

1981 The Petitioner filed a document titled "Amended Exception" on January 10,2011.

211However, the Department's January 5, 2011, Order denied his request for extension of

224the 15-day deadline for filing exceptions.

230Response to the Petitioner's Exceptions. This matter is now before me on

242administrative review for final agency action.

248BACKGROUND

249On March 26, 2010, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue an industrial

264wastewater facility permit to the City to discharge demineralization concentrate that

275would be produced bya new City reverse osmosis ("RO") water treatment plant

289('WTP"). In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the

303City's Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. The City

316had decided tolook for another source of drinking water because of the cost of

330obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities. The City determined that the

342withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented its best option.

352The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater

362through an outfall into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling

378water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.'s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The

389wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet­

401constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City.

415The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water.

429Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the City is

441entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. After being

456discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward,

468out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The prevailing currents

485in the area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the

500mouth of the Anclote River.

505The Petitioner filed a challenge to the permit, which the Department referred to

518DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. At DOAH the Petitioner requested and was

531granted leave to amend his petition. Before the final hearing, the Petitioner moved to

545disqualify the City's attorney. The ALJ denied the motion for lack of good cause. At the

561beginning of the final hearing, the Petitioner moved to disqualify the ALJ. The ALJ also

576denied that motion because the Petitioner failed to allege facts constituting good cause

589for the ALJ's disqualification. The Petitioner moved for disqualification of the ALJ two

602more times during the course of the final hearing and each time his motion was denied

618for lack of good cause.

623The ALJ conducted the final hearing on September 13 and 14,2010, in Tarpon

637Springs, Florida. The four-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH

650and the parties filed proposed recommended orders. The ALJ subsequently issued his

662RO on December 16, 2010.

667RECOMMENDED ORDER

669In the RO the ALJ recommended that the Department issue a final order

682determining that the Petitioner lacks standing, and approving issuance of the industrial

694wastewater facility permit to the City. (RO at page 17). The ALJ found that the

709Petitioner is a resident of Tarpon Springs and in his petition for hearing, he alleged that

725he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the

741proposed wastewater discharge would occur. (RO,-r 1). However, the ALJ found that

754the Petitioner did not present any evidence at the final hearing to prove these

768allegations, i.e. to show that his substantial interests would be affected by the proposed

782discharge. (RO mr 1 and 39). The ALJ also noted that neither the City nor the

798Department stipulated to facts that would establish the Petitioner's standing. (RO,-r 1).

811The ALJ found that the City provided reasonable assurance that the proposed

823discharge would meet all rule requirements for the use of mixing zones, including the

837minimum water quality criteria in Rule 62-302.500, Florida Administrative Code. (RO mr

84914 through 23, 45, 46). The ALJ also determined that the City provided reasonable

863assurance that the proposed discharge will meet all the antidegradation permitting

874requirements, including the specific requirements of Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes,

884and Rule 62-620.625, Florida Administrative Code, that are applicable to discharges of

896demineralization concentrate. (RO,-r 25 through 36, 44, 47). He found that the City

910demonstrated that the proposed discharge is necessary or desirable under federal

921standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. (RO,-r 25

935through 36,44). The ALJ found that the City investigated other disposal options, but

949they were not economically or technologically reasonable. (RO mr 4, 24, 25). He noted

963that an applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any

977degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are

988clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17).

999In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal

1009standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the

1021Department is required by Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1 )(b) to consider certain

1034factors. (RO,-r 26). The ALJ found that the proposed project is important to and is

1050beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for

1064the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts

1076otherwise unljsable water into a valuable resource, and avoids the use of water from the

1091surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. (RO 'II 27). In

1106addition, the Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is

1119in the public interest. See § 403.0882, Fla. Stat. (2010). (RO 'II 28).

1132The ALJ also determined that the proposed discharge would not adversely affect

1144conservation of fish and wildlife. He found that the discharge is not toxic thus native fish

1160and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. (RO'll'll17

1173through 21, 29). He found that the only identified threatened or endangered species

1186that frequents the canal waters was the endangered Florida Manatee. However, the

1198ALJ found that manatees moving through the mixing zones would not be adversely

1211affected by the RO concentrate. He found that there are no seagrasses in the area of

1227the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense

1241seagrass beds nearby. However, theproposed discharge would have no effect on the

1253seagrasses in the area. (RO '11'1129, 30,31, 32).

1262The ALJ concluded that theproposed discharge would not adversely affect

1272recreational activities, such as SWimming, boating, or fishing, because it is not toxic.

1285The proposed discharge would also meet Class III water quality standards before

1297reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters.

1311(RO 'l1'li10, 11, 33). The ALJ also found that the proposed discharge would not

1325adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve since it is two miles away.

1338(RO'll35).

1339STANDARDS OF REVIEW OF DOAH RECOMMENDED ORDERS

1346Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, prescribes that an agency reviewing a

1356recommended order may not reject or modify the findings of fact of an AU, "unless the

1372agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in

1387the order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence."

1401§ 120.57(1 )(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); Charlotte County v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So.3d

14151089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Wills v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 955 SO.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA

14312007). The term "competent substantial evidence" does not relate to the quality,

1443character, convincing power, probative value or weight of the evidence. Rather,

"1454competent substantial evidence" refers to the existence of some evidence (quantity) as

1466to each essential element and as to its admissibility under legal rules of evidence. See

1481e.g., Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 671 So.2d 287,

1493289 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

1499A reviewing agency may not reweigh the evidence presented at a DOAH final

1512hearing, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or judge the credibility of witnesses. See

1525e.g., Rogers v. Dep't of Health, 920 SO.2d 27, 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Belleau v. Dep't

1542of Envtl. Prot., 695 SO.2d 1305, 1307 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997); Dunham v. Highlands

1557County Sch. Bd., 652 SO.2d 894 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1995). These evidentiary-related

1569matters are within the province of the AU, as the "fact-finder" in these administrative

1583proceedings. See e.g., Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 842 SO.2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1 st

1598DCA 2003); Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA

16131985). Also, the AU's decision to accept the testimony of one expert witness over that

1628of another expert is an evidentiary ruling that cannot be altered by a reviewing agency,

1643absent a complete lack of any competent substantial evidence of record supporting this

1656decision. See e.g., Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. IMC

1667Phosphates Co., 18 So.3d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Collier Med. Ctr. v. State,

1682Dep't of HRS, 462 So.2d 83, 85 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1985); Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v.

1700Orlando Uti/so Comm'n, 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

1711A reviewing agency thus has no authority to evaluate the quantity and quality of

1725the evidence presented at a DOAH formal hearing, beyond making a determination that

1738the evidence is competent and substantial. See, e.g., Brogan v. Carter, 671 So,2d 822,

1753823 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1996). Therefore, if the DOAH record discloses any competent

1767substantial evidence supporting a challenged factual finding of the ALJ, I am bound by

1781such factual finding in preparing this Final Order. See, e.g., Walker V. Bd. of Prof.

1796Eng'rs, 946 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2006); Fla. Dep't of Corr. V. Bradley, 510 SO.2d

18131122, 1123 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1987). In addition, an agency has no authority to make

1829independent or supplemental findings of fact. See, e.g., North Port, Fla. V. Consol.

1842Minerals, 645 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

1852Section 120.57(1 )(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes an agency to reject or modify

1864an ALJ's conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules "over which it has

1878substantive jurisdiction." See Barfield V. Dep't of Health, 805 SO.2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA

18922001); L.B. Bryan & Co. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, 746 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA

19091999); Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. v. Sheridan, 784 SO.2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

1924If an ALJ improperly labels a conclusion of law as a finding of fact, the label should be

1942disregarded and the item treated as though it were actually a conclusion of law. See,

1957e.g., Battaglia Properties v. Fla. Land and Water Adjudicatory Comm'n, 629 SO.2d 161,

1970168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). However, neither should the agency label what is essentially

1984an ultimate factual determination as a "conclusion of law" in order to modify or overturn

1999what it may view as an unfavorable finding of fact. See, e.g., Stokes v. State, Bd. of

2016Prof'! Eng'rs, 952 SO.2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

2025An agency's review of legal conclusions in a recommended order is restricted to

2038those that concern matters within the agency's field of expertise. See, e.g., Charlotte

2051County v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 SO.3d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); GEL. Corp. v.

2066Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 875 SO.2d 1257, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). An agency has the

2082primary responsibility of interpreting statutes and rules within its regulatory jurisdiction

2093and expertise. See, e.g., Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n v. Dade County Police

2105Benevolent Ass'n, 467 SO.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 1985); Fla. Public Employee Council, 79 v.

2119Daniels, 646 SO.2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Considerable deference should be

2132accorded to these agency interpretations of statutes and rules within their regulatory

2144jurisdiction, and such agency interpretations should not be overturned unless "clearly

2155erroneous." See, e.g., Falk v. Beard, 614 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 1993); Dep't of Envtl.

2170Regulation v. Goldring, 477 SO.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1985). Furthermore, agency

2181interpretations of statutes and rules within their regulatory jurisdiction do not have to be

2195the only reasonable interpretations. It is enough if such agency interpretations are

"2207permissible" ones. See, e.g., Suddath Van Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 668 So.2d

2222209,212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

2228However, agencies do not have jurisdiction to modify or reject rulings on the

2241admissibility of evidence. Evidentiary rulings of the ALJ that deal with "factual issues

2254susceptible to ordinary methods of proof that are not infused with [agency] policy

2267considerations," are not matters over which the agency has "substantive jurisdiction."

2278See Martuccio v. Dep't of Prof'! Regulation, 622 SO.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993);

2293Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Regulation, 475 SO.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla.

2308Power & Light Co. v. Fla. Siting Bd., 693 SO.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2324Evidentiary rulings are matters within the ALJ's sound "prerogative ... as the finder of

2338fact" and may not be reversed on agency review. See Martuccio, 622 So.2d at 609.

2353Agencies do not have the authority to modify or reject conclusions of law that apply

2368general legal concepts typically resolved by judicial or quasi-judicial officers. See, e.g.,

2380Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. v. Sheridan, 784 SO.2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

2395RULING ON PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR REMAND

2401In his Exceptions, the Petitioner requests that I remand this case back to the ALJ

2416to address the issues raised by the Exceptions. The Petitioner asserts that the ALJ has

"2431failed to make factual findings essential to a proper agency final order." See Petitioner's

2445Exceptions at pages 1, 2, 4, and 6. As further explained in this order, the Petitioner's

2461assertions are primarily based on the ALJ's findings that the testimony of the

2474Petitioner's expertwitness was not persuasive. Under the standard of review outlined

2485above, the ALJ's decision to accept the testimony of one expert witness over that of

2500another expert is an evidentiary ruling that cannot be altered by a reviewing agency,

2514absent a complete lack of any competent substantial evidence of record supporting his

2527decision. See e.g., Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. IMC

2538Phosphates Co., 18 So.3d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

2548It is well established by the controlling case law of Florida that an agency has the

2564authority to remand an administrative case back to DOAH for further limited

2576proceedings where additional findings of fact and related conclusions of law are critical

2589to the issuance of a coherent final order. See, e.g., Dep't of Envtl. Protection v. Dep't of

2606Mgmt., Div. of Adm. Hearings, 667 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1995); Collier Develop.

2621Corp. v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 592 SO.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). An agency

2636head is prohibited from reopening the record, receiving additional evidence, or making

2648supplemental findings, and is required to remand the case to the ALJ in limited

2662circumstances when further factual findings are needed. See e.g., Intelligence Group,

2673Inc. v. Dep't of State, 610 SO.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Lawnwood Medical Center,

2688Inc. v. AHCA, 678 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

2698However, remand is only available in exceptional circumstances. See, e.g.,

2708Henderson Signs v. Dep't of Transp., 397 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1981); Dep't of

2725Prof. Regulation v. Wise, 575 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). If the agency head

2741concludes that the ALJ "failed to perform" his function as a fact finder, the appropriate

2756remedy is to remand the case back to the ALJ because the agency head cannot make

2772his own findings of fact. See e.g., Cohn v. Dep't of Prof. Regulation, 477 SO.2d 1039

2788(Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Remand may be authorized where the reviewing agency or a court

2803properly modifies or rejects an important conclusion of law contained in the RO, thereby

2817requiring that certain additional factual issues be resolved. See, e.g., Putnam Cty. Envtl.

2830Council v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 24 FAL.R. 4674 (Fla. DEP 2002) app. den., Case

2844Nos. 1002-3673 and 1002-3674 (Fla. 1st DCA, Nov. 26, 2003).

2854In this case the ALJ conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing and accepted

2866numerous documentary exhibits from all the parties. He submitted a RO with findings of

2880fact and conclusions of law. I do not find that additional factual issues need to be

2896resolved in order for me to enter a coherent final order. Therefore, the remand request

2911is denied.

2913RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

2916The case law of Florida holds that parties to formal administrative proceedings

2928must alert reviewing agencies to any perceived defects in DOAH hearing procedures or

2941in the findings of fact of ALJs by filing exceptions to DOAH recommended orders. See,

2956e.g., Comm'n on Ethics v. Barker, 677 SO.2d 254, 256 (Fla. 1996); Henderson v. Dep't

2971of Health, Bd. of Nursing, 954 SO.2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Fla. Dep't of Corrs. v.

2988Bradley, 510 SO.2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Having filed no exceptions to

3002certain findings of fact the party "has thereby expressed its agreement with, or at least

3017waived any objection to, those findings of fact." Envtl. Coalition of Fla., Inc. v. Broward

3032County, 586 SO.2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1991); see also Colonnade Medical Ctr.,

3047Inc. v. State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Admin., 847 SO.2d 540, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA

30642003). However, even when exceptions are not filed, an agency head reviewing a

3077recommended order is free to modify or reject any erroneous conclusions of law over

3091which the agency has substantive jurisdiction. See § 120.57(1 )(1), Fla. Stat. (2010);

3104Barfield v. Dep't of Health, 805 SO.2d 1008 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2001); Fla. Public Employee

3120Council, 79 v. Daniels, 646 So.2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

3132Finally, in reviewing a recommended order and any written exceptions, the

3143agency's final order "shall include an explicit ruling on each exception."

3154See § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2010). However, the agency need not rule on an

3168exception that "does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order

3181by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or

3197that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record." {d.

3209PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS

3211I. PRIMARY PRODUCERS OF THE AQUATIC FOOD CHAIN

3219The Petitioner takes exception to Finding of Fact 22 in the RO on the bases that

3235the AU "failed to make a factual finding essential to Agency review," and that the AU's

3251finding of fact lacks competent substantial evidence. See Petitioner's Exceptions at

3262page 2. In Finding of Fact 22 the AU found that:

327322. Petitioner's expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review

3282the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were

3292submitted to the Department by the City. However, she

3301expressed a general concem about a salty discharge that

3310could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at

3320the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no

3332dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows

3339that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to

3349occur.

3350The Petitioner argues that the AU disregardedthe "factual testimony of expertwitness

3361Anne Ney," and "conveniently avoided any statement in paragraph 22 of [her] factual

3374testimony." See Petitioner's Exceptions at page 2. It appears that the Petitioner is

3387arguing that certain alleged testimony from his expert witness regarding toxicity of the

3400proposed discharge should have been made a finding of fact by the AU. However, the

3415Petitioner does not provide any specific citation to the record as required by Section

3429120.57(1 )(k), Florida Statutes, to support his argument. Under the standard of review

3442outlined above, I have no authority to evaluate the quantity and quality of the evidence

3457presented at a DOAH formal hearing, beyond making a determination that the evidence

3470is competent and substantial.

3474Also, contrary to the Petitioner's argument, competent substantial record

3483evidence supports the ALJ's findings in paragraph 22, including the testimony of his

3496expert witness. (Ney T. pp. 182-184). There is competent substantial record evidence

3508that showed the types of organisms utilized for the acute toxicity tests were

3521presumptively protective of the marine environment, and that the tests showed that the

3534proposed discharge will not adversely affect the marine environment. (Reiss, T. pp. 370­

3547371,400; Greenwell, T. pp. 494-495, 513-514). In addition, the ALJ found in paragraph

356123 that the permit requires the City to "periodically test the water and the sediments for

3577any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge." (RO,-r 23).

3587Because the ALJ's findings are based on competent substantial record evidence

3598and for the reasons stated above, the Petitioner's first Exception is denied.

3610IL STANDING OR SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST

3615The Petitioner takes exception to Finding of Fact 1 and related Conclusions of

3628Law 37,38, and 39 of the RO, where the ALJ finds and concludes that the Petitioner

3645failed to present any evidence to show that his substantial interests would be affected

3659by the proposed discharge. Thus the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove

3673his standing to challenge the City's permit. (RO,-r 39). The Petitioner makes several

3687arguments in this exception that fall into two main categories. First, the Petitioner

3700argues against the ALJ's legal conclusion that standing is an issue of subject matter

3714jurisdiction that can be raised at any time. See Dep't of Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc.,

3730803 So. 2d 892, 896 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2002). He contends that the other parties did not

3748object or move for dismissal either before or during the hearing; that the ALJ on his own

3765made no ruling during the hearing; and that by conducting the Final Hearing the ALJ

3780accepted his standing. See Petitioner's Exceptions at page 3. However, Florida case

3792law establishes that standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised

3807at any time that cannot be established by consent, and is not waived just because a

3823hearing is completed on the merits of the permit application. Id.; see also Grand Dunes

3838Ltd. v. Walton Cty., 714 SO.2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(Standing in the

3852administrative context is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction and cannot be conferred

3865by consent of the parties). In addition, contrary to the Petitioner's arguments, standing

3878requires more than just being a resident of the City that is an applicant for a permit.

3895Under Agrico Chemical v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 406 SO.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA

39091981), the Petitioner has the burden of showing how his substantial environmental

3921interests will be affected by the proposed discharge and that his interest is of a type or

3938nature that this administrative proceeding is designed to protect. Id. Florida courts have

3951rejected the standing of persons and organizations that were unable to prove how their

3965environmental interests were substantially affected by the proposed agency action. See,

3976e.g., Mid-Chattahoochee River Users v. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 948 So. 2d 794 (Fla.

39901st DCA 2006); Agrico Chern. Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d

4007DCA 1981).

4009Second, the Petitioner tries to establish his standing by pointing to "public

4021records" that were not presented at the hearing and are not part of the record evidence

4037in this case. See Petitioner's Exceptions at page 3. Under the standard of review it is

4053improper for a reviewing agency to make supplemental or additional findings of fact on

4067issues where the AU made no findings. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. State, 693 SO.2d

40841025,1026-1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Norlh Porl, Fla. v. Consolidated Minerals, 645

4097SO.2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

4104The Petitioner also contends that although the ALJ found that a public interest

4117test applies to this type of permit, the ALJ merely recites the requirements of the public

4133interest test and concludes that it is satisfied. See Petitioner's Exceptions at page 4.

4147Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the ALJ made factual findings in paragraphs 27

4160through 33 that are supported by competent substantial record evidence, addressing

4171the requirements of the public interest test that was set forth in paragraph 26 of the

4187findings of fact. (Reiss, T. pp. 378-38, 385-388; Greenwell, T. pp. 478-479, 488,491,

4201494-495). These factual findings support the ALJ's conclusion in paragraph 44 that the

4214City provided reasonable assurances that the proposed discharge is "clearly in the

4226public interest." (RO 1[44).

4230Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's second Exception is

4241denied.

4242III. RESIDENCE TIME RULE

4246The Petitioner takes exception to the ALJ's findings regarding the establishment

4257of the mixing zones and whether these mixing zones would create acutely toxic

4270conditions in Findings of Fact 14 through 21, and the related Conclusions of Law 45 and

428646, where the ALJ concluded that the City provided reasonable assurance that all the

4300requirements governing the use of mixing zones were met. The Petitioner asserts that

4313the ALJ's findings and conclusions are "incomplete and without full factual consideration

4325absent any mention anywhere by the ALJ as to the Residence Time Rule." See

4339Petitioner's Exceptions at page 7. However, the Petitioner did not present any

4351testimony through his expert witness, or any other witness, regarding the applicability of

4364the Residence Time Rule to the instant permit application. In fact, the Petitioner's only

4378expert witness, Anne Ney, specifically testified that she did not rely upon the book

4392discussing the Residence Time Rule for any of her testimony. (Ney 1. p. 195).

4406Furthermore, the Petitioner's expert, Anne Ney, did not review any of the studies that

4420the City submitted in support of its application so she could not provide any testimony

4435regarding those submittals and any potential affect of the proposed discharge on marine

4448life in the discharge area. (Ney, T. pp. 182-183).

4457The Petitioner seeks to have me make supplemental findings of fact on issues

4470about which the hearing officer made no findings. However, I am not allowed to do so.

4486See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. State, 693 So.2d 1025, 1026-1027 (Fla. 1 51 DCA 1997).

4503Or else the Petitioner invites the reweighing of the evidence presented at the hearing.

4517Under the standard of review I am not allowed to reject or modify evidentiary findings

4532unless upon a review of the complete record, I determine that there is no competent

4547substantial evidence from which the ALJ's findings could be inferred. See, e.g.,

4559Charlotte Cty. v. IMC Phosphate Co., 18 So.3d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Heifetz v.

4574Dep't of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). There is

4588competent substantial record evidence to support the ALJ's factual findings in

4599paragraphs 14 through 21 establishing that the mixing zone requirements were met and

4612that the discharge into the mixing zone areas would not create acutely toxic conditions

4626in those areas. (Reiss, T. pp. 370-371, 400; Greenwell, T. pp., 494-495,513-514).

4639Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's third Exception is

4650denied.

4651IV. PUBLIC INTEREST

4654The Petitioner takes exception to the ALJ's Findings of Fact 26,27,28, and

4668Conclusion of Law 44 in the RO on the basis that these paragraphs merely reiterate the

4684provisions of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. In these findings and

4695conclusions the ALJ determined that the City provided reasonable assurance that the

4707proposed discharge will meet all of the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule

471962-4.242, including the requirement to demonstrate that the proposed discharge is

4730necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are

4741clearly in the public interest. The Petitioner does not assert that these findings are not

4756supported by competent substantial record evidence 2 Instead he contends that the

4768ALJ did not apply the correct law, Le. the correct public interest test. See Petitioner's

4783Exceptions at page 8. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, neither the public interest

4796balancing test in Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, nor the definition found in Rule 18-

481021.003(45), Florida Administrative Code, apply to the industrial wastewater permit at

4821issue in this proceeding.

4825The Petitioner also objects to the ALJ's Finding of Fact 35 as speculative and

4839contrary to testimony presented by his witnesses but he does not provide a citation to

4854the record as required by Section 120.57(1 )(k), Florida Statutes. Contrary to the

4867Petitioner's objection, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support

48792 The findings in paragraph 27 are supported by competent substantial evidence in the

4893record. (Reiss, T. pp. 378-379, J. Ex. 12). Furthermore, the findings in paragraphs 29

4907through 33 are supported by competent substantial evidence and these findings, in

4919addition to paragraph 27, support the ALJ's conclusion of law in paragraph 44. (Reiss,

4933T. pp. 380-381; J. Ex. 12; Greenwell, T. pp. 494, 505, 506; J. Ex. 41, Fact Sheet, p. 478

4952of 687; Anastasiou, T. pp. 430-431,443-444: DEP Exs. 2 and 4; Reiss, T. pp. 380-381;

4968J. Ex. 12 and Greenwell, T. p. 494; Greenwell, T. pp. 495, 501 and Robertson, T. pp.

4985320-322, City Ex. 22).

4989the ALJ's finding that the aquatic preserve is two miles away from the proposed

5003discharge (Anastasiou, T. p. 429, DEP Ex. 3; Greenwell, T. p. 504), and the Petitioner

5018stipulated that the aquatic preserve is located where the county line of Pinellas County

5032begins (T. p. 429). Also, there is competent substantial record evidence to support the

5046ALJ's finding in paragraph 35 that the proposed discharge would have "no effect on the

5061waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve." (Greenwell, T. p. 504).

5073Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's fourth Exception is

5084denied.

5085V. DISQUALIFICATION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATIORNEY THOMAS TRASK, and

5094VI. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE BRAM D.E. CANTER.

5101The Petitioner takes exception to the ALJ's decisions to deny his motions to

5114disqualify the City Attorney who was the attorney of record, and to recuse the ALJ.

5129These types of evidentiary or procedural rulings are wholly within the purview of the ALJ

5144and cannot be disturbed because I do not have substantive jurisdiction over these

5157procedural and evidentiary issues. See Barfield v. Dep't of Health, 805 SO.2d 1008 (Fla.

51711st DCA 2002). Therefore, the Petitioner's fifth and sixth Exceptions are denied.

5183VII. "MOTION FOR ABEYANCE UNTIL CIRCUIT COURT DECISION AND

5192EXTENSION OF FIFTEEN DAY EXCEPTION FILING RULE."

5199The Petitioner makes the assumption that the Department granted his request for

"5211abeyance and extension of the 15 day rule offiling" exceptions. See Petitioner's

5223Exceptions at page 10. However, as noted above the Department issued an Order

5236Denying Motion on January 5, 2011, in which the Petitioner's ability to file more

5250Exceptions was expressly denied. The Petitioner served his "Amended Exception," on

5261January 6, 2011, which the Department received on January 10. In the Amended

5274Exception the Petitioner states that he had not yet received an order from the

5288Department, and "amended" his previously filed timely Exceptions with an additional

5299exception. For the purposes of potential judicial review I've ruled on the Petitioner's

5312additional Exceptions below.

5315VIII. MORTALITY AND IMPAIRMENT TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS OF AQUATIC

5324FOOD CHAIN.

5326The Petitioner appears to take exception to Conclusion of Law 43 in the RO,

5340where the ALJ found that:

534543. Ross made numerous hearsay objections to the

5353admission into evidence of various reports and data

5361summaries that were part of the Department's permit file for

5371the City's proposed discharge. However, Ross presented no

5379evidence to show that any statements in the reports or data

5390summaries were inaccurate or unreliable. The court in

5398JW.C. 3(at 789) stated:

5402lW]hen agency employees or officials

5407having special knowledge or expertise in

5413the field accept data and information

5419supplied by the applicant, the same data

5426and information, when properly

5430identified and authenticated as accurate

5435and reliable by agency or other

5441witnesses, will be readilyaccepted by

5446the [administrative law judge], in the

5452absence of evidence showing its

5457inaccuracy or unreliability.

5460***

5461[T]his having been done, the

5466[administrative law judge] would not be

5472authorized to deny the permit unless

5478contrary evidence of equivalent quality

5483is presented by the opponent of the

5490permit.

54913 Dep't of Transp. v. J. WC. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

5507Ross did not present contrary evidence of equivalent quality

5516on any disputed factual issue.

5521The Petitioner argues, as in his Exceptions above, that the AU failed to make

5535factual findings and disregarded expert testimony that the Petitioner contends was of

5547equivalent quality. See Petitioner's Amended Exception at page 1. However, he does

5559not provide any citations to the record as required by Section 120.57(1 )(k), Florida

5573Statutes. As I've explained in my ruling on the Petitioner's first Exception, I have no

5588authority to evaluate the quantity and quality of the evidence presented at a DOAH

5602formal hearing, beyond making a determination that the evidence is competent and

5614substantial. See, e.g., Brogan v. Carter, 671 SO.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). It is

5630the role of the ALJ as the "fact-finder" in these administrative proceedings to weigh the

5645evidence presented at a DOAH final hearing, resolve conflicts therein, and judge the

5658credibility of witnesses. See e.g., Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 842 SO.2d 1022, 1025

5672(Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Regulation, 475 SO.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st

5688DCA 1985). The AU's decision to accept the testimony of one expertwitness over that

5702of another expert is an evidentiary ruling that I cannot alter, absent a complete lack of

5718any competent substantial evidence of record supporting his decision. See e.g., Peace

5730River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 SO.3d

57411079,1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

5747Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's eighth Exception is

5758denied.

5759CONCLUSION

5760Having considered the applicable law and standards of review in light of the

5773findings and conclusions set forth in the RO, and being otherwise duly advised,

5786It is ORDERED:

5789A. The ALJ's Recommended Order (Exhibit A) is adopted and incorporated by

5801reference herein.

5803B. The proposed Industrial Wastewater Facility permit in DEP File No.

5814FL0571580-001-IW5A is GRANTED.

5817JUDICIAL REVIEW

5819Any party to this proceeding has the right to seek judicial review of the Final

5834Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal

5849pursuant to Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk

5863of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard,

5875M.S. 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal

5890accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.

5903The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Final Order is filed

5921with the clerk of the Department.

5927DONE AND ORDERED of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida.

5936STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

5940OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

5943Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building

59473900 Commonwealth Boulevard

5950Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

5953FILED ON THIS DATE PURSUANT TO § 120.52,

5961FLORIDA STATUTES, WITH THE DESIGNATED

5966DEPARTMENT CLERK, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS

5972HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED.

5974d..;llill

5976CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5979I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by United

5994States Postal Service to:

5998Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Henry Ross

6004Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 1020 South Florida Avenue

6014595 Main Street Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

6021Dunedin, FL 34698

6024by electronic filing to:

6028Division of Administrative Hearings

6032The DeSoto Building

60351230 Apalachee Parkway

6038Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

6041and by hand delivery to:

6046Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire

6050Department of Environmental Protection

60543900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35

6059Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

6062this 31 day of January, 2011.

6068STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

6072OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

6075r=C- s: :>

6078'VRANCINEM. FFOL'f@; == .. -

6083Administrative Law Counsel

60863900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35

6091Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

6094Telephone 850/245-2242

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance by DOAH filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2011
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2011
Proceedings: Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2011
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2011
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2011
Proceedings: Notice to Parties.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Clarify Challenge to Rule filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/29/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Abeyance Until Circuit Court Decision and Extension of Fifteen Day Filing Rule filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/20/2010
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Petitioner's proposed exhibits to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 13-14, 2010). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2010
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Canter from H. Ross regarding a letter from Thomas Trask filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2010
Proceedings: Order (denying motion for rehearing).
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs and DEP's Joint Response to Petitioner's Motion for Rehearing Dated November 8, 2010 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Rehearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2010
Proceedings: Order (denying Petitioner's motion for hearing).
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2010
Proceedings: Letter to J. Hubbard from H. Ross regarding attemted to contact by telephone filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs and DEP's Joint Response to Petitioner's Motion for (RE) Hearing Dated October 25, 2010 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2010
Proceedings: Order (denying motion to delete hearing transcript).
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2010
Proceedings: DEP's Amended Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2010
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Bram Canter from N. Schaffner regarding filing of DEP's Amended Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2010
Proceedings: DEP's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Delete Entire Transcript of Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2010
Proceedings: Affidavit filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2010
Proceedings: Order (Petitioner, alone, is granted until and including October 26, 2010, to file an amended proposed recommended order).
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2010
Proceedings: Objection to Expension filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2010
Proceedings: Affidavit filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2010
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2010
Proceedings: Order (parties shall file PROs on or before October 22, 2010).
Date: 10/12/2010
Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2010
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: List of Exhibits (exhibits not attached) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Disqualify Assistant City Attorney Thomas Trask filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Response to Notice of Telephonic Hearing Motion to Set Aside any Court Order City of Tarpon Springs is City, Department of Environmental Protection is Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Supplemental List of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from H. Ross regarding documents that were hand-delivered to the Judge and Thomas Trask (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from H. Ross regarding recent court order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Renewal of Motion to Substitue Counsel for City filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Response to Court Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2010
Proceedings: Affidavit and Motion to Disqualify Judge filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2010
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioner's request for court to receive two exhibits of Petitioner by reopening court without a court reporter).
PDF:
Date: 09/29/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs and DEP's Joint Response to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance Dated September 25, 2010 filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/29/2010
Proceedings: Order (denying Petitioner's motion for continuance).
PDF:
Date: 09/29/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs and DEP's Joint Response to Petitioner's Request for Court to Receive Two Exhibits of Petitioner by Reopening Court Without a Court Reporter Dated September 20, 2010 and Filed September 27, 2010 filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/29/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2010
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) List of Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2010
Proceedings: Request for Court to Receive Two Exhibits of Petitioner by Reopening Court Without a Court Reporter filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2010
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2010
Proceedings: DEP's Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2010
Proceedings: Supplemental List of Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2010
Proceedings: Supplemental List of Witnesses filed.
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Recuse Trial Judge filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: Supplemental List of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: List of Exhibits (exhibits not attached) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Disqualify Assistant City Attorney Thomas Trask filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2010
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause.
Date: 09/10/2010
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (Return of Service) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Perpetuate Testimony of Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Supplemental List of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Substitute Counsel for the City filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners Response to City/Departments Joint Response to Petitioners Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from H. Ross requesting for subpoenas filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Motion to Perpetuate Testimony of Witness and Motion to Substitute Counsel for the City filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Motion to Strike Witness from Petitioner's Supplemental Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2010
Proceedings: DEP's & City of Tarpon Springs' Motion for Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2010
Proceedings: DEP & City of Tarpon Springs Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2010
Proceedings: DEP's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2010
Proceedings: Request for List of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2010
Proceedings: DEP's Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioner Henry Ross' Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs' Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2010
Proceedings: Order Denying Continuance.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2010
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 13 and 14, 2010; 1:00 p.m.; Tarpon Springs, FL; amended as to time).
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs and DEP's Joint Response to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance Dated August 25, 2010 filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2010
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Canter from H. Ross regarding a letter from Thomas Trask filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2010
Proceedings: Response to Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2010
Proceedings: Interrogatories to City and Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2010
Proceedings: Order (granting motion for leave to amend and accepting Amendment VII).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2010
Proceedings: DEP'S Response to Petitioner's Motion for Leave of Court and DEP's Motion to Strike Pleadings filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Leave of Court filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Correspondence to Listed Agencies filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2010
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/04/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Answers to Interrogatories (complete document) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Answers to Interrogatories (incomplete document) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Motion to Strike Pleadings filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2010
Proceedings: Motion to Set Aside Order Rejecting Petitioner's Amendment VII filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2010
Proceedings: City of Tarpon Springs First Request for Production to Petitioner, Henry Ross filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2010
Proceedings: Order (granting Department's motion to strike pleadings) .
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2010
Proceedings: Order (rejecting Petitioner's amendment VII).
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2010
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 13 and 14, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Tarpon Springs, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2010
Proceedings: Amendment VII filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2010
Proceedings: Amendment filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2010
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2010
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Henry Ross filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2010
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike Pleadings filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2010
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2010
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Intent to Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Amendment V filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Amendment IV filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Amendment III filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Amendment II filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Amendment filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Enlargement of Time for Filing a Petition for an Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2010
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2010
Proceedings: Amendment II filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2010
Proceedings: Amendment filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Enlargement of Time for Filing a Petition for an Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Petition for Enlargement of Time for Filing a Petition for an Administrative Hearing filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
06/21/2010
Date Assignment:
06/23/2010
Last Docket Entry:
04/27/2011
Location:
Tarpon Springs, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (4):