84-002653 West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority vs. Southwest Florida Water Management District
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, July 26, 1985.


View Dockets  
Summary: Applicant must demonstrate need for requested water quantity to show compliance with reasonable/beneficial use criterion. The need was not shown. Comprehensive use permit denied.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER )

13AUTHORITY , )

15)

16Petitioner , )

18)

19vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2653

24)

25SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER )

29MANAGEMENT DISTRICT , )

32)

33Respondent. )

35_________________________________)

36S. C. BEXLEY, JR. , )

41)

42Petitioner , )

44)

45vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2654

50)

51SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER )

55MANAGEMENT DISTRICT , )

58)

59Respondent. )

61_________________________________)

62RECOMMENDED ORDER

64Pursuant to notice, a consolidated administrative hearing was held before

74Diane Demor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings,

84on November 13 through 16 and December 11 and 12, 1984, in Brooksville, Florida.

98The prime issues for determination in this proceeding are whether the

109consumptive use permit applications of either and/or both petitioners should be

120granted.

121APPEARANCES

122For Petitioner Authority : Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.

132and Edward M. Chew

136705 East Kennedy Boulevard

140Tampa, Florida 33602

143For Petitioner Bexley : L. M. Blain, Thomas Cone

152and Hallie Evans

155202 Madison Street

158Tampa, Florida 33602

161For Respondent SWFWMD : J. Edward Curren

1682379 Broad Street

171Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712

174For Intervenor James Benjamin Harrill

179Pasco County : 7530 Little Road

185New Port Richey, Florida 33553

190For Intervenor Carl R. Linn

195City of Street 267 75th Avenue

201Petersburg: Saint Petersburg Beach,

205Florida 33706

207For Intervenor Ronald D. McCall

212Pottberg: 100 East Madison Street

217Tampa, Florida 33602

220INTRODUCTION

221The petitioners West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) and

231S. C. Bexley, Jr. ( Bexley) each filed an application with the Southwest Florida

245Water Management District (District) to modify their existing consumptive use

255permits. The contents and rationale for the requested modifications will be

266more fully described in the Findings of Fact section of this Recommended Order.

279Both petitioners seek to supply water to Pasco County. In District staff

291reports dated June 29, 1984, it was recommended that both applications be denied

304based on a finding that Pasco County presently has a sufficient supply of water

318to meet its average annual water demands up to and including the year 1990.

332Without ruling on its staff's recommendation, the District Governing Board

342granted pending petitions for intervention, granted consolidation and referred

351the consolidated proceedings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The

361intervening parties include Pasco County, which supports the public supply

371portions of both applications; the City of Saint Petersburg, which opposes the

383Bexley application and alleges that the proposed withdrawals would interfere

393with the City's previously existing legal use of water at the South Pasco

406Wellfield ; and Arlic C. T. Pottberg , as Trustee of the Otto Pottberg Trust, who

420opposes the Authority's application on the ground that increased pumpage at the

432Starkey Wellfield may adversely affect the Trust's adjoining property.

441In essence, it is the position of applicant Bexley that his application for

454a consumptive use permit (CUP) sufficiently complies with all statutory and

465regulatory criteria for approval, and that proof of demonstrated need by the

477intended user is not a threshold requirement for a CUP. In support of his

491position, Bexley presented the testimony of Charles A. Arbuckle , accepted as an

503expert in utility management, including evaluation of future water needs;

513William Munz , the Director of Public Works and Utilities for Pasco County; John

526James Gallagher, the County Administrator for Pasco County; Joe Dale Hardin ,

537accepted as an expert in hydrogeology and conducting pump tests for CUPs ; Alton

550Robertson, accepted as an expert in groundwater and surface water hydrology,

561including the evaluation and assessment of environmental impacts caused by

571groundwater withdrawals; Roy Silberstein; David Allen Wiley; Robert E. Vaughn,

581accepted as an expert in the engineering and construction of public water

593production and supply systems; William Coarser; and Susan Ames. Received into

604evidence were Bexley's Exhibits 1 through 28.

611The position of the applicant Authority is that Pasco County has no current

624need for additional water and, therefore, both applications, insofar as they

635request additional withdrawals of water, should be denied. In the alternative,

646the Authority contends that if a need has been demonstrated for Pasco County,

659the Authority, rather than Bexley, is entitled to additional withdrawals to

670fulfill that need. In support of these positions, the Authority offered the

682testimony of Gene Albert Heath, accepted as an expert in managing and

694administering a water utility, including planning, construction, engineering,

702water demand projections, finances and operations; Thomas V. Furman, accepted as

713an expert in the planning of water supply systems, including evaluating

724facilities, sources of supply and water demand projections; Terry Knepper; Jose

735Ignacio Garcia-Bengochea, accepted as an expert in hydrogeology, surface water

745hydrology c and engineering; George Cornwell, accepted as an expert in ecology;

757Lane Craig Cady, accepted as an expert in engineering and utility system cost

770evaluation; and William Duynslager, accepted as an expert in engineering and

781water utilities management. Authority Exhibits 1 through 15 and 17 through 44

793were received into evidence.

797The District's overall position at the hearing was basically identical to

808that of the Authority. Testifying on behalf of the District were Roy

820Silberstein, accepted as an expert in hydrology; David Allen Wiley accepted as

832an expert in hydrology; Theodore Rochow, accepted as an expert in environmental

844science, particularly biology and ecology; Fritz Musselmann, the Director of

854Real Estate at the District; and William D. Coarser, accepted as an expert in

868biology. The District's Exhibits 1 through 11 were received into evidence.

879The City of Saint Petersburg presented the testimony of Frank Crum,

890accepted as an expert in hydrogeology, and Gene Heath. Its Exhibits 1 and 2

904were received into evidence.

908Intervenor Pottberg testified in his own behalf, and his Exhibit 1 was

920received into evidence.

923No witnesses or exhibits were offered during the hearing by intervenor

934Pasco County.

936During a previously announced evening session, members of the general

946public were given the opportunity to testify. Ann Denker, Patricia Pieper and

958Sylvia Young testified, and Public's Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into

970evidence.

971The parties were given the opportunity to file legal memoranda in support

983of their respective positions, as well as proposed findings of fact and proposed

996conclusions of law. All parties submitted post-hearing documents within a

1006timely manner after the filing of the hearing transcript, which occurred on June

10196, 1985. These documents have been carefully considered by the undersigned

1030Hearing Officer. To the extent that the Findings of Fact proposed by the

1043parties are not included in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as not

1056being supported by competent substantial evidence adduced at the hearing,

1066irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in dispute or as constituting legal

1078conclusions as opposed to factual findings.

1084FINDINGS OF FACT

1087Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the

1098hearing, the following relevant facts are found:

1105WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY (STARKEY WELLFIELD)

11131. The Authority is a nonprofit five-member interlocal entity created in

11241974, pursuant to Section 373.1962, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of

1135planning, designing and operating new sources of water supply to governmental

1146entities in Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Its members include the

1157Counties of Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough and the Cities of St. Petersburg

1169and Tampa. The City of New Port Richey also has a seat on the Authority Board.

1185The Authority's revenues are presently derived entirely from the sale of water

1197to its customers. It owns and/or operates five wellfields, some of which are

1210connected by a water transmission pipeline to each other and to wellfields

1222operated or owned by Pinellas County and the City of St. Petersburg. In 1984,

1236the Authority supplied approximately 74 million gallons per day (mgd) to its

1248customers and held consumptive use permits (CUPs) for a total of 94 mgd average

1262and 144 mgd peak or maximum. The Authority anticipates that it will serve

1275approximately 800,000 people in the year 1985. Its master plan, which was last

1289updated in 1982, projects future water demands through 1995 and identifies

1300alternative sources of supply to satisfy those demands.

13082. One of the wellfields presently operated by the Authority is the

1320Starkey Wellfield located in Pasco County. The Starkey Wellfield property,

1330located on some 5,400 or 6,947 acres, was acquired in phases by the Southwest

1346Florida Water Management District (District) over a period of years beginning in

1358the early 1970's. There are two remaining parcels which the District has

1370contracted to acquire in 1985 and 1986. These parcels will be acquired under

1383the "Save Our Rivers" program embodied in Section 373.59, Florida Statutes. The

1395various contracts between the District and the Starkey family contain

1405restrictive covenants which require that "the land remain, as nearly as

1416practicable, in its natural state" and that water withdrawals be restricted so

1428that they "do not substantially and/or permanently damage the lands adjacent to

1440the area." In 1981, the District granted the Authority an exclusive license to

1453operate a wellfield on the Starkey property provided that it maintain the

1465wellfield "as nearly as practicable in its natural state." All cater produced

1477from the property is to be for the water supply needs of the City of New Port

1494Richey and Pasco County, except that those entities can authorize the sale of

1507surplus water.

15093. Prior to the Authority's involvement with the Starkey Wellfield, the

1520City of New Port Richey planned and constructed water supply facilities at the

1533extreme western portion of the wellfield. Four wells were originally permitted

1544for 3 mgd average and 4.5 mgd maximum. In 1979, in conjunction with Pasco

1558County as a co-applicant, the permit was modified to provide for increased

1570withdrawals of 8 mgd average and 15 mgd peak. This increase was not implemented

1584due to contractual problems between the City and the County. Then, in December

1597of 1981, the Authority became involved in the Starkey Wellfield. Pursuant to a

1610Water Transfer and Management Agreement and a Water Supply Agreement, the City

1622of New Port Richey's four existing wells were transferred to the Authority and

1635the Authority was authorized to construct additional wells and sell the water to

1648the City and Pasco County. As noted above, any surplus water could be sold to

1663others. These agreements have a term of 35 years, with an option of a 35-year

1678renewal period. If the agreements are terminated, the facilities are to revert

1690back to the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County.

17014. In 1982, the Authority, the City of New Port Richey and Pasco County

1715obtained the present CUP authorizing the construction and operation of a total

1727of 14 wells and permitting withdrawals at an average annual rate of 8 mgd and a

1743maximum daily rate of 15 mgd. This CUP expires on February 3, 1986. The ten

1758presently operating wells have the capacity to produce 22 mgd. The financing

1770arrangements for the construction of the Starkey Wellfield are not sufficient to

1782complete construction. There is a shortfall of about $720,000, which the

1794Authority plans to make up in revenues from the facility.

18045. On December 20, 1983, the Authority, with the City of New Port Richey

1818and Pasco County as co-applicants, applied to the District for a modification of

1831the 1982 CUP to increase withdrawals from 8 mgd average, 15 mgd maximum to 11

1846mgd average and 21 mgd maximum. At the time, the Authority believed that the

1860increases were justified by the projected water demands of the City and Pasco

1873County.

18746. In preparing its water supply plan submitted to the District on March

18871, 1984, the Authority determined that it would be feasible to interconnect the

1900Starkey Wellfield with the Cypress Creek pipeline and other major production

1911facilities. In order to finance this pipeline interconnection and again

1921believing that there was sufficient demand in Pasco County and the City of New

1935Port Richey to justify increased withdrawals, the Authority, along with the City

1947and the County, amended the application to modify their CUP on March 23, 1984.

1961This amendment sought average annual withdrawals of 15 mgd and maximum daily

1973withdrawals of 25 mgd. Also requested was the relocation of 2 wells that have

1987not yet been constructed.

19917. Between 1971 and 1982, five pump tests have been performed at the

2004Starkey Wellfield, and monitor wells are installed throughout the property.

2014Except for the northwest corner of the property, existing withdrawals have not

2026changed the natural condition of the property. Utilizing these various tests

2037and monitoring results to predict the hydrologic effects of the Authority's

2048proposed increased withdrawals, the District found that the potentiometric

2057drawdown and the water table drawdown at the requested rates would each increase

2070to almost twice the drawdown at the currently permitted rates. The withdrawal

2082of water will cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered more

2096than five feet outside the northern and southern boundaries of the Starkey

2108Wellfield property. The one-foot water table drawdown anticipated from the

2118increased withdrawals could have an adverse effect upon lands immediately

2128adjacent to the north and west. Likewise, this one foot water table drawdown

2141could cause adverse ecological effects on forests and wetlands within the

2152Starkey Wellfield properties. Approximately 40 percent of the Starkey property

2162is high quality wetlands.

21668. In June of 1984, a three-day field validation multi-pump test was

2178performed for the Authority. These test results were not available to the

2190District at the time it performed its evaluation. The June tests showed aquifer

2203characteristics different than those previously thought to exist. A much higher

2214transmissivity level was found and the differing leakance values throughout the

2225property demonstrated that the aquifer beneath the Starkey Wellfield is not

2236homogenous. A higher transmissivity level decreases the extent of

2245potentiometric surface drawdown. After substituting the new aquifer

2253characteristics found from the June pump tests, the Authority's computer

2263modeling demonstrates no violation of District hydrologic rules with respect to

2274potentiometric surface and water table drawdowns at the increased level of

2285withdrawals. The Authority's ecologist did not feel that the increased

2295withdrawals would adversely affect natural conditions on the Starkey property,

2305stating that a one-foot water table drawdown is well within the adaptive range

2318of wetland vegetation. In addition, the Authority will maintain its existing

2329ecological monitoring plan on site.

23349. The District has not established regulatory levels for the rate of flow

2347of streams or other water courses, for the potentiometric surface or for the

2360surface water in the vicinity of the Starkey Wellfield. Deep monitor wells on

2373the property indicate that there has been no increase in chloride

2384concentrations. Increased withdrawals are not expected to induce saltwater

2393encroachment. If it is found that the potentiometric surface at the Starkey

2405property boundary is lowered more than five feet, an alternative pumping

2416schedule can be put into effect to prevent that occurrence. The pattern of

2429production can be changed by shifting to different wells during the dry season.

2442Increased withdrawals will not lower off-site water tables, lakes or other

2453impoundments by more than one foot, and the potentiometric surface will not be

2466lowered below sea level.

247010. The Authority's proposed consumptive use of 15 mgd average would

2481withdraw 2,777.77 gallons per acre per day if the Starkey Wellfield contains

24945,400 acres, and 2,159.13 gallons per acre per day if it contains 6,947 acres.

2511Its present permitted withdrawals average more than 1,000 gallons per acre per

2524day.

252511. The Authority's proposed increased withdrawals will not interfere with

2535any presently existing legal use of water.

2542BEXLEY (CENTRAL PASCO WELLFIELD)

254612. Bexley owns 14,510 acres of land in Pasco County located immediately

2559east of the Starkey Wellfield. The land contains improved pasture, crops,

2570planted pine and some cypress heads and ponds. He presently holds a CUP

2583authorizing a combined average annual withdrawal of 2,416,000 gallons per day

2596with a maximum withdrawal of 11,520,000 gallons per day. Such withdrawals are

2610permitted for agricultural irrigation purposes and come from five wells.

262013. In August of 1983, Bexley entered into a contract with Pasco County.

2633The contract requires Bexley to produce and supply to Pasco County an average of

26479 mgd of public supply water and a maximum of 13 mgd. Pasco County is given the

2664exclusive right to purchase these amounts and, indeed, must pay for the water

2677made available, whether it is accepted or not. The term of the agreement

2690between Bexley and the County is 33 years.

269814. Pursuant to his contract with Pasco County, Bexley applied to the

2710District on December 21, 1983 to modify his existing CUP. A decrease in

2723agricultural withdrawals was requested, as were five additional wells to produce

273410 .0 mgd average and 13.5 mgd maximum for Pasco County's public water supply.

2748The five additional wells are to be located on 10,848 acres of land, to be known

2765as the Central Pasco Wellfield, located within the 14,510 acres owned or

2778controlled by Mr. Bexley. The modification would result in total (agricultural

2789irrigation and public water supply use) withdrawals of 11,881,000 gallons per

2802day annual average and 23,580,000 gallons per day maximum.

281315. In order to determine the anticipated hydrologic effect of the

2824proposed withdrawals, Bexley's hydrologist reviewed and analyzed previous

2832studies of regional hydrogeology and other wellfields prepared by the District,

2843the United States Geological Survey and private consultants. He also conducted

2854a "slug test" and a single well pump test over a period of six days. The

2870aquifer characteristics of the Bexley property were found to be within the range

2883of values derived from other regional testing. Assuming an homogenous aquifer,

2894these characteristics were used in computer modeling to predict the effect of

2906increased withdrawals on and off the Bexley property. The five-foot

2916potentiometric drawdown is confined to the Bexley property, as is the three-foot

2928water table drawdown. The effects of any potentiometric surface and/or water

2939table drawdowns on agricultural crops in the vicinity of the production wells

2951can be offset by irrigation. No lake or other impoundment off-site will be

2964lowered more than one foot. The proposed withdrawals will not cause the

2976potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level. Regulatory levels have

2987not been established by the District for potentiometric surface, stream flows or

2999surface water on the Bexley property. Although there was no deep monitor well

3012testing done, salt water encroachment is not anticipated as a result of the

3025proposed withdrawals. After an independent evaluation, the District staff also

3035concluded that the proposed Bexley withdrawals would not violate the District's

3046hydrologic rules.

304816. The proposed public water supply use of 10 mgd average from 10,848

3062acres will average 921.80 gallons per acre per day. The combined public supply

3075and agricultural irrigation use of 11.8 mgd from 14,510 acres will average

3088818.78 gallons per acre per day.

3094CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (SOUTH PASCO WELLFIELD)

310117. The City of Saint Petersburg owns and operates the South Pasco

3113Wellfield, located on a 589 acre site to the south of the Bexley property. This

3128wellfield has been in operation since 1973, and the City has a CUP to withdraw

3143water at the rate of 16.9 mgd annual average and 24 mgd maximum as part of a

3160public supply system. This CUP expires on September 1, 1992. The CUP requires

3173the City to balance production from its South Pasco Wellfield equally with its

3186two other well fields -- Section 21 and Cosme-Odessa. Among the terms and

3199conditions of the CUP are that three regulatory wells be monitored so as not to

3214cause the cumulative weekly average elevations of the potentiometric surface of

3225the aquifer to be lower than the regulatory level set for each well. One of the

3241regulatory wells is located on State Road 54, about 1.5 miles south of the

3255Bexley southern property boundary. The regulatory level set for that well is

3267that the potentiometric surface not be below 42.0 feet above mean sea level on a

3282cumulative weekly average basis. On a noncumulative weekly average basis, the

3293elevations may be 37.0 feet above mean sea level. Since 1974, average water

3306levels at the State Road 54 regulatory well have fluctuated from 44.8 feet to

332049.4 feet.

332218. Bexley's proposed combined average withdrawals may cause a

3331potentiometric surface drawdown of between 1.3 and 1.9 feet at the State Road 54

3345regulatory well.

334719. The City of Saint Petersburg presented evidence that if the City pumps

3360at its permitted average of 16.9 mgd and Bexley pumps at its average of 11.8

3375mgd, the City will only be able to withdraw 14.1 mgd without violating the

3389regulatory level for the State Road 54 well. However, this result was obtained

3402by starting off with the normal water levels in the State Road 54 well as they

3418existed in 1980-81, a particularly dry year, and then comparing them with the

3431results obtained if Bexley were to pump its total combined average of 11.8 mgd.

3445This methodology fails to take into account Bexley's permitted withdrawals of

34562.4 mgd as they existed in 1980-81, and in effect, double-counted them by

3469initially ignoring their impact on the 1980-81 water levels and adding them back

3482in as a part of the new combined total. In addition, the exhibits and testimony

3497offered by the City failed to demonstrate that the cumulative weekly average

3509elevations would go below 42.0 feet if Bexley were pumping at its requested

3522average rate. While the City of St. Petersburg did utilize its permitted

3534average capacity in 1975, for the past five years it has averaged only between

354810.1 and 12.3 million gallons per day from its South Pasco Wellfield. Even if

3562the regulatory level of the State Road 54 well were in jeopardy of violation, it

3577would be possible to shift the pumpage among the eight production wells to

3590counter such a result. The Bexley property is located approximately 3.5 miles

3602from the center of pumpage at the South Pasco Wellfield.

3612THE OTTO POTTBERG TRUST PROPERTY

361720. The Otto Pottberg Trust Property, owned by the Pottberg family since

36291936, is comprised of 8,000 acres of land located immediately north of the

3643Starkey Wellfield. The property is used for cattle grazing and a nursery

3655operation, and wildlife on the property is abundant. The intervenor Pottberg

3666has observed that since the operation of the well field began on the Starkey

3680property, the cattle ponds on the Pottberg property dry up and vegetation and

3693grasses are adversely affected during the dry seasons. He has observed a

3705noticeable decline in all lake levels. He fears that increased withdrawals from

3717the Starkey well field would diminish the use of his property for cattle grazing

3731and nursery operations, would create a fire hazard and would adversely affect

3743plant, animal and human life on his property.

375121. The Authority's experts found no surface drawdowns which would extend

3762into the Pottberg property. The District determined that the potentiometric

3772surface drawdown resulting from the proposed increased withdrawals from the

3782Starkey Well field would exceed five feet on the northern boundary--thus

3793extending into the property owned by the Otto Pottberg Trust. Likewise, the

3805water table drawdown of one foot extends beyond the property at the northwest

3818corner. However, there was no evidence that there are lakes on the Pottberg

3831property at or near the northwest corner of the Starkey property, or that there

3845is an existing CUP well on the Pottberg property in the area where the

3859potentiometric surface drawdown exceeds five feet.

3865PASCO COUNTY'S WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES

387122. Pasco County is legally authorized and required to provide an adequate

3883public water supply for its citizens. Based upon per capita use and estimates

3896of population growth, the quantity of public supply water needed by Pasco County

3909has been estimated by various experts as follows:

3917YEAR AVERAGE MAXIMUM

3920MGD MGD

39221985 11.3 20.3

39251986 12.3

39271988 12.8 28.6

39301990 16.4 29.5

39331993 18.8 40.8

39361995 21.8 39.5

39392000 27.2 49.0

3942In the year 1983, the Pasco County Utility Department actually utilized 8.1 mgd

3955for public water supply purposes.

396023. Pasco County has a contract right and obligation to purchase the

3972following amounts of water produced by the Authority at the Starkey Wellfield:

3984YEAR AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM MGD

39891985 7

39911986 6.7

39931987 6.4

39951988 6.1

39971989 5.8

39991990 and thereafter 5.5

4003The City of New Port Richey also has an allocated entitlement to the remaining

4017amounts of water withdrawn from the Starkey Wellfield under its current permit.

4029The Water Supply Agreement for the Starkey Well field recognizes that the City

4042and County will have increasing water supply needs, and provides that they may,

4055upon giving the Authority two years prior notice, increase their entitlement.

406624. The Pasco County Utility Department also has 13 CUPs covering public

4078supply wells located on or near the coast. These CUPs, which were renewed in

4092May of 1984 and expire in May of 1992, authorize a total withdrawal of 4 .54 mgd

4109average. The majority of these wells are located in coastal areas along and to

4123the west of the 10-foot potentiometric surface contour near the saltwater-

4134freshwater interface. Wells west of the 10-foot contour line generally have

4145high chloride levels. The County has experienced inefficiency in operating some

4156of these wells, and they are considered suitable mainly for fire control and

4169peaking purposes. A condition of the 13 CUPs requires a proportionate, or

4181gallon by gallon, decrease of average day withdrawals should Pasco County

4192acquire another source of public water supply.

419925. Pinellas County is contractually obligated to provide Pasco County

4209with up to 10 mgd upon demand. Pasco County controls how much water it will

4224take from the Pinellas County water system. This water is produced by the

4237Authority from other wellfields located within Pasco County, is purchased by

4248Pinellas County and then is transported to Pinellas County. Upon request by

4260Pasco County, the water is then transported back up north again to Pasco County.

4274The water travels approximately 25 to 40 miles from Pasco County to Pinellas

4287County and back to Pasco County. The Pinellas County water system has

4299sufficient capacity to continue to provide 10 mgd to Pasco County. Pasco County

4312does not currently utilize the full 10 mgd, partially because such use would

4325currently present difficulties in fulfilling its contractual obligation or

4334entitlement from the Starkey Wellfield. The contract between Pinellas and Pasco

4345Counties was not placed into evidence. No evidence was presented as to whether

4358Pasco County is either able to or desires to eliminate or change its contract

4372with Pinellas County. It was the position of the Pasco County Director of

4385Public Works and Utilities that it would be more cost-effective to have an

4398alternative source of public water supply. There was insufficient evidence

4408produced at the hearing to determine if the Pinellas County water provided to

4421Pasco County is more or less expensive than the rates presently charged by the

4435Authority or by the contractual agreement between Bexley and Pasco County.

4446CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

444926. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

4459parties and the subject matter of these consolidated proceedings. Section

4469120.57(1)(b)(13), Florida Statutes. Each of the intervenors have adequately

4478demonstrated that they have standing to participate as substantially affected

4488persons in these consumptive use permit proceedings. Pasco County is a co-

4500applicant with the Authority and is the intended user of the water proposed to

4514be withdrawn by both applicants. The Pottberg Trust owns 8,000 acres of land

4528adjoining the Starkey Wellfield, and increased withdrawals of water from that

4539wellfield could, depending upon the amount and the location of the withdrawals,

4551have an ecological impact upon the southern portion of the Pottberg property.

4563The evidence demonstrates that withdrawals of water from the Bexley property

4574could, again dependent upon both the amount withdrawn by Bexley and the amount

4587withdrawn by the City, substantially affect the City of St. Petersburg's ability

4599to withdraw previously authorized quantities of water from its South Pasco

4610Wellfield.

461127. The Florida Legislature has declared that the waters in this State are

4624among its basic resources, and has recognized that such waters have not

4636previously been conserved or fully controlled so as to realize their full

4648beneficial effect. To this extent, it is declared Legislative policy to provide

4660for the management of water and "to promote the conservation, development, and

4672proper utilization of surface and ground water." Section 373.016, Florida

4682Statutes. In order to implement this Legislative mandate, water management

4692districts are authorized by statute to require permits for the consumptive use

4704of water. Section 373.219, Florida Statutes.

471028. An applicant for a CUP must establish that the proposed use of water

4724is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing

4736legal use of water and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223,

4749Florida Statutes. In addition, it is incumbent upon an applicant to demonstrate

4761that the proposed withdrawal of water will meet the hydrologic criteria set

4773forth in the District's Rule 40D-2.301(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.

4784In these consolidated proceedings, a determination of noncompliance with the

4794initial threshold criterion -- whether each applicants' proposed use is a

4805reasonable beneficial use, is determinative of all remaining issues.

481429. Counsel for Mr. Bexley and for Pasco County have maintained throughout

4826these proceedings that an applicant is not required to demonstrate a "need" for

4839water as an independent criterion. It is contended that there is no statutory

4852or regulatory authority to deny an application for an alternative source of

4864water supply simply because the intended user has access to other sources of

4877supply which already are permitted. Bexley argues that so long as the water

4890actually applied for is to be used by Pasco County for public supply purposes,

4904the "reasonable beneficial use" criterion has been met. The District and the

4916Authority, on the other hand, contend that if the quantity of water requested is

4930not "necessary" or "needed," it is not a reasonable beneficial use and is

4943therefore not a legally authorized use.

494930. After carefully considering the contentions of counsel and analyzing

4959the statutory and regulatory provisions with respect to the issuance of CUPs ,

4971common sense and logic dictates the conclusion that an applicant must

4982demonstrate a need for the quantity of water requested in order to show

4995compliance with the "reasonable beneficial use" criterion. To conclude

5004otherwise would permit an applicant to obtain a permit for unlimited amounts of

5017water, regardless of other permitted sources of water available to the

5028applicant, so long as one drop of the requested water was destined for a

5042reasonable beneficial purpose. This would totally defeat the Legislative policy

5052that our groundwater resources be managed, conserved and properly utilized. If

5063Pasco County, either through separate permits or contractual entitlements, is

5073authorized to withdraw more water than it needs for public supply purposes, that

5086water will either be put to other unauthorized uses or it will be preempted from

5101use by other reasonable beneficial users. Taken to the extreme, it is obvious

5114that one entity authorized to supply public water in an area may not preempt all

5129other water use in that area simply because that entity wishes to have

5142alternative, even if not additional, sources of supply. Such would not be a

"5155reasonable beneficial use" of the water requested.

516231. The quantity of water requested is the cornerstone of the permit

5174evaluation system. A diversion of water which exceeds the amount reasonably

5185necessary for a beneficial use will either be wasted or will be preempted for

5199use by others. Such a "use" of the water is neither reasonable nor beneficial.

5213Likewise, whether the requested withdrawals interfere with existing legal uses

5223of water or are consistent with the public interest is dependent upon the

5236quantity of water withdrawn.

524032. A demonstration of need for the quantity of water requested is

5252obviously contemplated and required. "Reasonable beneficial use" is statutorily

5261defined in Section 373.019(4), Florida Statutes, as:

" 5268the use of water in such quantity as is

5277necessary for economic and efficient

5282utilization for a purpose and in a manner

5290which is both reasonable and consistent

5296with the public interest." ( underlining

5302supplied)

5303Likewise, Rule 17-40.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, lists 16 factors to be

5314given consideration in determining whether a water use is a reasonable

5325beneficial use. Among those factors are the "quantity of water requested for

5337the use" and "the demonstrated need for the use." It is clear that the mere

5352request, either through a CUP application or demonstration of a contractual

5363arrangement, for additional, supplemental or alternative sources of public

5372supply water is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate that the proposed use

5385will be reasonable and beneficial. It is the use of water which is permitted,

5399and use can only be reasonable and beneficial if the quantity requested is

5412needed by the applicant or the intended user. See Village of Tequestra v.

5425Jupiter Inlet Corp. 371 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1979). Also see Section 373.239(2)(a),

5437Florida Statutes, which allows the District to approve modifications to a CUP

5449requesting less than 100,000 gallons per day if the permittee can establish a

5463change in conditions resulting in the water allowed becoming "inadequate" for

5474the permittee's "need."

547733. The evidence demonstrates that both applicants intend to provide water

5488to Pasco County. 1/ Having determined that a demonstration of need is essential

5501to a finding that the proposed use is a reasonable beneficial use, the needs or

5516demands and existing water supplies of Pasco County must be examined.

552734. Pasco County presently has three sources of public water supply -- the

5540Starkey Wellfield, its 13 permitted wells and its contractual arrangement with

5551Pinellas County. In 1985, the water available to Pasco County from these three

5564sources is 21.5 million gallons per day on an average annual basis. These three

5578sources exceed the County's average demand for 1985 by 10.2 mgd. The permitted

5591or contractual supply from these three sources continues to exceed Pasco

5602County's average annual demand projections for all years for which projections

5613were made up until the year 1995. For the year 1986, supply exceeds demand by

56288.9 mgd. In 1988, there is an excess supply of 7.8 mgd. In 1990, the supply

5644exceeds the demand by 3.6 mgd, and in 1993, the excess supply is 1.2 mgd. It is

5661only in the year 1995 that the projected average demand of 21.8 mgd exceeds the

5676supply provided from the currently permitted sources, and then only by 1.8 mgd.

568935. In spite of the overabundant supply of water presently available to

5701Pasco County, the two applicants, with Pasco County's support, are now

5712requesting a combined total of 17 mgd average to be used for Pasco County's

5726public water supply. Bexley has a contractual arrangement with Pasco County for

5738the supply and purchase of 9 mgd. The Authority has no such contractual

5751arrangement beyond the present arrangement as set forth in Finding of Fact 23

5764above. Presumably, a portion of the additional 7 mgd average requested by the

5777Authority would go to the City of New Port Richey, though the evidence is not

5792clear on this point. Indeed, the only real "use" shown for the requested

5805increase in withdrawals by the Authority was to help finance the pipeline

5817interconnection proposed in the Authority's long range plans.

582536. It is admitted by all parties that the County's present sources of

5838supply are sufficient in raw quantity t percent satisfy its demands through

58501990. However, it is contended that it is within the authority and discretion

5863of the County through its Board of County Commissioners, and not the District,

5876to determine how the County will replace existing sources of supply with new

5889sources of supply. The County urges that it desires to reduce or eliminate its

5903reliance on its coastal wells as a result of environmental and water quality

5916concerns and also as a result of high operational and maintenance costs. The

5929evidence was insufficient in this proceeding to allow a conclusion that all or a

5943portion of these wells present a clear environmental or cost-prohibitive barrier

5954to use. Nevertheless, the County's intention, accepted by the District, to

5965abandon such use is evidenced by the permit conditions placed on these wells

5978requiring a gallon per gallon reduction in the permitted withdrawals should

5989other sources of water be acquired. Thus, the Board of County Commissioner's

6001discretionary authority to replace existing sources of supply with new sources

6012of supply has been recognized. If the County desires to cease using the 4.5 mgd

6027from its 13 permitted wells, it may do so today and still have an adequate

6042supply to meet its needs at least through 1988, and most probably through 1989.

6056By utilizing its entitlement from Pinellas County, it would have a 1988 supply

6069of 16 .1 mgd average when its demand for 1988 is 12.8 mgd. Demand projections

6084for 1989 were not made, but the 1990 demand is 16.4 mgd, or 0.9 mgd more than

6101its current supply.

610437. It is further argued that Pasco County desires to reduce its reliance

6117on the Pinellas County contract and gain control of its own destiny with respect

6131to adequate and affordable water supplies. It is urged that the concept of

"6144need" includes more than raw quantity and that environmental and economical

6155considerations must be included. However, there was no evidence presented to

6166demonstrate that the Pinellas County supply is either inadequate, undependable,

6176uneconomical or presents adverse environmental effects. It must be presumed

6186that the District took into consideration the 10 mgd entitlement of water to

6199Pasco County when it issued the CUP covering the source of that water. There is

6214no competent substantial evidence that the Board of County Commissioners of

6225Pasco County intends to formally rescind or eliminate all or any portion of this

6239contractual arrangement with Pinellas County. Should the District ignore this

6249source of water to Pasco County and, at the same time, allow it to be preempted

6265from other uses? To do so would be to disregard its responsibility to provide

6279for the "management" of water resources and the "conservation" and "proper

6290utilization" of groundwater.

629338. In summary, there is insufficient evidence in the record of this

6305proceeding to determine that Pasco County needs additional or alternative

6315sources of water through the year 1990. To authorize a use of water in a

6330quantity which greatly exceeds the demonstrated need of the intended user would

6342be in conflict with the statutory conditions for a permit -- that the proposed

6356use be a "reasonable beneficial use." Since Pasco County does not currently

6368need additional water and its request for alternative sources of water has not

6381been justified, both applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposed

6392increased withdrawals are for a reasonable beneficial use. Their applications

6402must therefore be denied. Having failed to comply with the threshold criterion

6414for issuance of a CUP, neither applicant is entitled to a permit and all

6428remaining issues regarding interference with existing legal uses of water,

6438public interest, competing applications and compliance with the hydrologic

6447criteria are rendered moot.

645139. Bexley's renewed motion to strike certain testimony and exhibits as

6462they relate to the "demonstrated need" theory is DENIED for the reasons

6474previously expressed regarding the reasonable beneficial use criterion. The

6483Authority's motion to strike from Bexley's written closing argument references

6493to a violation of federal and state antitrust laws is GRANTED.

650440. The record evidence, both oral and documentary, in these cases related

6516solely to the two applicants' requests for increased withdrawals for public

6527water supply purposes. No evidence was presented regarding Bexley's

6536continuation of agricultural irrigation withdrawals or the request by the

6546Authority in its permit modification application to relocate two wells at the

6558Starkey Wellfield. Consequently, no findings of fact or conclusions of law on

6570the merits of these portions of the pending applications are made or intended in

6584this Recommended Order.

6587RECOMMENDED ORDER

6589Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it

6602is RECOMMENDED that:

66051. the application, as amended, filed by the West Coast Regional Water

6617Supply Authority to modify its existing consumptive use permit by increasing

6628withdrawals at the Starkey Wellfield from 8 mgd average annual and 15 mgd

6641maximum daily to 15 mgd average and 25 mgd maximum be DENIED, and

66542. the application filed by S.C. Bexley, Jr. to modify its existing

6666consumptive use permit by decreasing its agricultural irrigation withdrawal rate

6676and adding a public water supply at an average annual withdrawal rate of 10 mgd

6691and a maximum daily rate of 13.5 mgd, for a total combined average of 11.9 mgd

6707and a maximum of 23.6 mgd for agricultural and public water supply use, be

6721DENIED.

6722Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of July, 1985, in

6733Tallahassee, Florida.

6735___________________________________

6736DIANE D. TREMOR,

6739Hearing Officer

6741Division of Administrative Hearings

6745The Oakland Building

67482009 Apalachee Parkway

6751Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6754(904) 488-9675

6756Filed with the Clerk of the

6762Division of Administrative Hearings

6766this 26th day of July, 1985.

6772ENDNOTE

67731/ It is recognized that the Authority may also wish to provide water to the

6788City of New Port Richey from the Starkey Wellfield, but no evidence was

6801presented to demonstrate the future public water supply needs of that City.

6813COPIES FURNISHED:

6815L. M. Blain

6818202 Madison Street

6821Tampa, Florida 33602

6824Edward P. de la Parte , Jr.

6830705 East Kennedy Boulevard

6834Tampa, Florida 33602

6837J. Edward Curren

68402379 Broad Street

6843Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712

6846Carl R. Linn

6849267 75th Avenue

6852St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33706

6857Ronald D. McCall

6860100 East Madison Street

6864Tampa, Florida 33602

6867James Benjamin Harrill

68707530 Little Road

6873New Port Richey, Florida 33553

6878Gary W. Kuhl

6881Executive Director

6883Southwest Florida Water

6886Management District

68882379 Broad Street

6891Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 09/04/1985
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/04/1985
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/26/1985
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Case Information

Judge:
DIANE D. TREMOR
Date Filed:
07/23/1984
Date Assignment:
08/01/1984
Last Docket Entry:
07/26/1985
Location:
Tampa, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):