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

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8HENRY ROSS , )

11)

12Petitioner , )

14)

15vs. ) Case No. 10 - 3351

22)

23CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS AND )

29DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

33PROTECTION , )

35)

36Respondents . )

39)

40RECOMMENDED ORDER

42The final hearing in this case was held on September 13 and

5414, 2010, in Tarpon Springs, Florida, before Bram D. E. Canter,

65Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

73Hearings ("DOAH").

77APPEARANCES

78For Petitioner: H enry Ross, pro se

851020 South Florida Avenue

89Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689

93For Respondent City of Tarpon Springs:

99Thomas Jask, Esquire

102Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt,

105Trask & Yacavone, LLP

109595 Main Street

112D unedin, Florida 34698

116For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:

122Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire

126Department of Environmental Protection

1303900 Commonwealth Boulevard

133Mail Station 35

136Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

141STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

145The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City

157of Tarpon Springs (ÐCityÑ) is entitled to a industrial

166wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of

174demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to

183Pasco County, Florida.

186PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

188On March 26, 2010, the Department of Environmental

196Protection ("Department") gave notice of its intent to issue an

208industrial wastewater facility permit to the City to discharge

217demineralization con centrate that would be produced by a new

227City water treatment plant ("WTP"). Petitioner, Henry Ross

237(ÐRossÑ), filed a petition for hearing to challenge the permit.

247The Department referred the matter to DOAH to conduct an

257evidentiary hearing.

259Ross reques ted and was granted leave to amend his petition.

270Before the final hearing, Ross moved to disqualify the City's

280attorney. The motion was denied for lack of good cause. At the

292beginning of the final hearing , Ross moved to disqualify the

302Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). That motion was also denied

313because Ross failed to allege facts constituting good cause for

323the ALJ's disqualification. Ross moved for disqualification of

331the ALJ two more times during the course of the final hearing

343and each time his mot ion was denied for lack of good cause.

356At the final hearing, the City presented the testimony of:

366Paul E. Smith; Bob Robertson; and C. Robert Reiss, accepted as

377an expert in reverse osmosis (" RO ") water treatment and

388demineralization concentrate discharg e. City Exhibits 1 through

39618, 20 through 22, 27, 30, and 31 were received into evidence.

408The Department presented the testimony of: Christopher

415Anastasiou, accepted as an expert marine science and

423oceanography; Jeffry S. Greenwell, accepted as an exper t in

433environmental engineering; and Jan Mandrup - Poulsen, accepted as

442an expert in water quality assessments and mixing zones.

451Department Exhibits 1 through 42 were received into evidence.

460Petitioner presented the testimony of: Joseph R. McCreary,

468Jr.; Mi chael T. Palmer; and Ann Ney, accepted as an expert in

481marine ecology. Petitioner offered no exhibits during the final

490hearing, but was allowed to file Petitioner Exhibit One

499( excerpts from the fourth edition of ÐOceanography Î an

509Invitation to Marine Sci enceÑ by Tom Garrison) after the

519hearing, and it was admitted into evidence.

526The four - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

537with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders that

546were carefully considered in the preparation of this Rec ommended

556Order.

557FINDINGS OF FACT

560The Parties

5621. Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his

573petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational

583fisherman and a " consumer of fish taken from the area " where the

595proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no

603evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations.

612Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that

622would establish Ross's standing.

6262. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in

636Pinellas County and t he applicant for the industrial wastewater

646permit that is challenged by Ross.

6523. The Department is the agency charged by law with the

663duty , and granted the power , to regulate the discharge of

673pollutants into waters of the State.

679The Proposed Permit - Gen eral

6854. Due to the cost of obtain ing potable water from

696Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another

706source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative

715water supply plan was developed by the CityÓs Office of Public

726Services wh ich analyzed potable water supply options. It

735determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish

743groundwater represented the best option for the City.

7515. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge

760industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater

769is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO

777technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to

787convert it to potable water .

7936. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with

802the operation of a not - yet - c onstructed WTP that would supply

816public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City

827must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest

837Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of

846groundwater. Whether the Town is e ntitled to a consumptive use

857permit is not at issue in this proceeding.

8657. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a

873maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd")

885of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however,

895i s expected to discharge 1.05 mgd.

9028. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force

912main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County.

925The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is

936already being used for the discharge o f cooling water from

947Progress Energy Florida, Inc.Ós Anclote Power Generation

954Facility.

9559. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the

968canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate

976compliance with its own permitting requirements, so a s not to

987interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate

994compliance.

99510. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of

1006the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of

1018the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on fo ot

1029from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating

1039barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or

1048pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the

1057area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix .

106811. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater

1077would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and

1088into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in

1099area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas

1109County and th e mouth of the Anclote River.

111812. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater,

1126the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed

1135well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small,

1148pilot - scale RO unit to generate an RO conc entrate that is

1161representative of the proposed RO discharge.

116713. It was determined that eight constituents of the

1176wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would

1185exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum,

1192copper, iron, gr oss alpha (a radioactivity measurement) , total

1201radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc.

1206The Mixing Zones

120914. The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a

1219wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving

1228waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 4.2 44. Within the mixing

1241zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. A t

1252the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state

1262water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water

1273quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable.

128215. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater,

1289receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model

1299to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with

1309Department staff, a separate mixing zone w as established for

1319each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet

1330water quality standards at the outfall.

133616. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square

1347meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square

1357meters. The mixing zones are con servatively large to assure

1367sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is

1375expected to occur in a smaller area.

1382Toxicity Analysis

138417. Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a

1395mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that a re

1406acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62 - 302.500(1)(a). A

1417wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by

1426exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and

1434determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die

1444within a spec ified time period.

145018. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside

1458minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is

1467not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably

1477presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organis ms

1488in the receiving waters.

149219. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO

1501concentrate indicated zero toxicity.

150520. The Department requested that the City also analyze

1514the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A

1523wastewater discharge s hows chronic toxicity if exposure to the

1533discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test

1543organisms.

154421. The tests performed on the representative discharge

1552showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not

1562create chronic toxici ty in the mixing zones.

157022. PetitionerÓs expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review

1579the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were

1589submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed

1599a general concern about a salty discharge that c ould create

1610stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom

1620of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved

1631oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity

1639stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur.

16482 3 . The proposed permit requires the City to conduct

1659quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the

1668City to periodically test the water and sediments for any

1678unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge.

1684Evaluation of Disposal Options

16882 4 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 620.625(6)

1698requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge

1707demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options

1713potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated

1722blending the discharge co ncentrate with the City's re - use water

1734irrigation program or with the CityÓs domestic wastewater

1742discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too

1752salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of

1763domestic wastewater available thro ughout the year. In addition,

1772the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and,

1781therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection

1789under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 4.242 (2).

1801The City also looked at underground injection b ut that was

1812economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward

1820migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to

1829discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf.

1837Anti - degradation Analysis

18412 5 . For a proposed new discharge, a p ermit applicant must

1854demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land

1863application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of

1872water quality is not economically and technologically

1879reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 4.242(1)(d). As

1889d iscussed above, the City investigated other disposal options ,

1898but they were not economically or technologically reasonable.

19062 6 . An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge

1918must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal

1927standar ds and under circumstances that are clearly in the public

1938interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 302.300(17). In

1948determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under

1956federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in

1965the public interest, the Department is required by Rule

197462 - 4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors:

19821. Whether the proposed project is

1988important to and is beneficial to public

1995health, safety or welfare (taking into

2001account the policies set forth in Rule

200862 - 302.300, F.A. C., and, if applicable, Rule

201762 - 302.700, F.A.C.); and

20222. Whether the proposed discharge will

2028adversely affect conservation of fish and

2034wildlife, including endangered or threatened

2039species, or their habitats; and

20443. Whether the proposed discharge will

2050a dversely affect the fishing or water - based

2059recreational values or marine productivity

2064in the vicinity of the proposed discharge;

2071and

20724. Whether the proposed discharge is

2078consistent with any applicable Surface Water

2084Improvement and Management Plan that ha s

2091been adopted by a Water M anagement District

2099and approved by the Department.

21042 7 . The proposed project is important to and is beneficial

2116to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide

2126drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatm ent and

2137use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water

2145into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the

2156use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural

2168systems, such as wetlands.

21722 8 . T he Florida Legislature has found that the

2183demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as

2193expressed in Section 403.08 8 2, Florida Statutes (2010):

2202The legislature finds and declares that it

2209is in the public interest to conserve and

2217protect water resources, provide a dequate

2223supplies and provide for natural systems,

2229and promote brackish water demineralization

2234as an alternative to withdrawals of

2240freshwater groundwater and surface water by

2246removing institutional barriers to

2250demineralization and, through research,

2254includi ng demonstration projects, to advance

2260water and water by - product treatment

2267technology, sound waste by - product disposal

2274methods, and regional solutions to water

2280resources issues.

228229 . The proposed discharge would not adversely affect

2291conservation of fish and wildlife . Because the discharge is not

2302toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance

2310that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be

2321adversely affected by the discharge.

23263 0 . The only identified threatened or endangered spe cies

2337that frequent s the canal waters is the endangered Florida

2347Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm

2357waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink

2368fresh water . There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving

2381through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO

2392concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

2399Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection

2407of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the

2417proposed per mit.

24203 1 . Manatee s and many other aquatic species use seagrasses

2432as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the

2445canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but

2455there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge

2464wou ld have no effect on the seagrasses in the area.

24753 2 . The proposed discharge would not adversely affect

2485fishing or water - based recreational values or marine

2494productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge.

25023 3 . Because the proposed discharge is no n - toxic and would

2516meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the

2525closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf

2536waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed

2546discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge

2555would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as

2563swimming, boating, or fishing.

25673 4 . Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen

2577about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no

2588evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would

2598reduce marine productivity.

260135. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would

2609adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However,

2617the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge

2627would probably be undet ectable at that distance. It would have

2638no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic

2649preserve.

26503 6 . With regard to the requirement that the proposed

2661discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface

2670Water Improvement and Managemen t Plan for the area, there is no

2682such plan.

2684CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

26873 7 . For standing to challenge a permit, a petitioner must

2699show that he will suffer an injury in fact that is of sufficient

2712immediacy to entitle him to a hearing, and his substantial

2722injury is of the type or nature that the proceeding is designed

2734to protect. See Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg. ,

2745406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

275338 . Standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction

2763and, therefore, the issue may be raised at any time. Dep 't of

2776Revenue v. Daystar Farms, Inc. , 803 So. 2d 892, 896 ( Fla. 5th

2789DCA 2002).

279139 . Ross presented no evidence to show that his

2801substantial interests would be affected by the proposed

2809discharge. He failed to prove his standing to challenge the

2819City's permit. However, because the evidentiary hearing was

2827conducted and proposed recommended orders were filed addressing

2835the factual issues raised in the petition for hearing, Findings

2845and Fact and Conclusions of Law are presented in this

2855Recommended Order.

28574 0 . A permit applicant bears the ultimate burden of

2868providing reasonable assurance that all applicable permitting

2875criteria and standards will be met. See DepÓt of Transp. v.

2886J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

28984 1 . "Reason able assurance," in this context means a

2909demonstration that there is a substantial likelihood of

2917compliance with standards, or "a substantial likelihood that the

2926project will be successfully implemented." Metropolitan Dade

2933County v. Coscan Florida, Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA

29461992). It does not mean absolute guarantees.

29534 2 . The applicant must prove the facts necessary to show

2965his entitlement to the permit by a preponderance of the

2975evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2010).

29824 3 . Ross m ade numerous hearsay objections to the admission

2994into evidence of various reports and data summaries that were

3004part of the Department's permit file for the City's proposed

3014discharge. However, Ross presented no evidence to show that any

3024statements in the r eports or data summaries were inaccurate or

3035unreliable. The court in J.W.C. (at 789) stated:

3043[W]hen agency employees or officials having

3049special knowledge or expertise in the field

3056accept data and information supplied by the

3063applicant, the same data and i nformation,

3070when properly identified and authenticated

3075as accurate and reliable by agency or other

3083witnesses, will be readily accepted by the

3090[administrative law judge], in the absence

3096of evidence showing its inaccuracy or

3102unreliability.

3103* * *

3106[T]his having been done, the [administrative

3112law judge] would not be authorized to deny

3120the permit unless contrary evidence of

3126equivalent quality is presented by the

3132opponent of the permit.

3136Ross did not present contrary evidence of equivalent quality on

3146any dis puted factual issue.

31514 4 . The City provided reasonable assurance that the

3161proposed discharge will meet all the antidegradation permitting

3169requirements of Rule 62 - 4.242, including the requirement to

3179demonstrate that the proposed discharge is necessary or

3187d esirable under federal standards and under circumstances which

3196are clearly in the public interest.

32024 5 . The City provided reasonable assurance that the

3212proposed discharge will meet all the requirements of Rule

322162 - 4.244 for the use of mixing zones.

32304 6 . T he City provided reasonable assurance that, within

3241the mixing zones, the proposed discharge will meet the minimum

3251water quality criteria in Rule 62 - 302.500.

32594 7 . The City provided reasonable assurance that the

3269proposed discharge will meet all the requirem ents applicable to

3279industrial wastewater discharges, in general, and the specific

3287requirements of Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010) , and

3295Rule 62 - 620.625 applicable to discharges of demineralization

3304concentrate.

33054 8 . In summary, the City demonstrat ed its entitlement to

3317the industrial wastewater facility permit.

3322RECOMMENDATION

3323Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3333Law it is

3336RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order

3344determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and appro ving the

3353issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the

3362City.

3363DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December , 2010 , in

3373Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3377S

3378BRAM D. E. CANTER

3382Administrative Law Judge

3385Division of Administrative Hearings

3389The DeSoto Building

33921230 Apalachee Parkway

3395Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3400(850) 488 - 9675

3404Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3410www.doah.state.fl.us

3411Filed with the Clerk of the

3417Division of Administrative Hearings

3421this 16th day of December , 2 010 .

3429COPIES FURNISHED :

3432Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire

3436Department of Environmental Protection

34403900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

3446Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3451Thomas Jask, Esquire

3454Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP

3460595 Main Stree t

3464Dunedin, Florida 34698

3467Henry Ross

34691020 South Florida Avenue

3473Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689

3477Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

3481Department of Environmental Protection

3485Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

34903900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3493Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3498Tom Beason, General Counsel

3502Department of Environmental Protection

3506Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

35113900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3514Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3519Mimi Drew, Secretary

3522Department of Environmental Protection

3526Douglas Building

35283900 Commonwea lth Boulevard

3532Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3537NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3543All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

355315 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3564to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3575will issue the Final Order in this case.

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):