98-002417
Quail Creek Farms, Inc. vs.
Charles Bass And Southwest Florida Water Management District
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, April 27, 1999.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, April 27, 1999.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8QUAIL CREEK FARMS, INC., )
13)
14Petitioner, )
16)
17vs. )
19) Case Nos. 98-2417
23CHARLES BASS and SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ) 98-5607
30WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
34)
35Respondents. )
37___________________________________)
38RECOMMENDED ORDER
40A hearing was held in these cases in Tampa, Florida, on
51March 9 through 12, 1999, before Arnold H. Pollock, an
61Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative
69Hearings.
70APPEARANCES
71For Petitioner: Timothy A. Hunt, Esquire
77Hi ll, Ward & Henderson, P.A.
83101 East Kennedy Boulevard
87Suite 3700
89Tampa, Florida 33602
92For Respondent Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
101Charles Bass: David M. Caldevilla, Esquire
107Charles R. Fletcher, Esquire
111de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales
117101 East Kennedy Boulevard
121Suite 3400
123Tampa, Florida 33602
126For Respondent Margaret Lytle, Esquire
131Southwest Tony Muntchler, Esquire
135Florida Water Southwest Florida Water
140Management Management District
143District: 2379 Broad Street
147Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
150STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
154The issue for consideration in these cases is whether the
164Southwest Florida Management District should issue to Charles
172Bass Water Use Permit 207025.04, which would authorize
180groundwater withdrawals from three wells for crop irrigation on a
190farm located in Hardee County, Florida.
196PRELIMINARY MATTERS
198On January 21, 1998, Petitioner, Quail Creek Farms, Inc.,
207(Quail Creek), filed a petition for administrative hearing to
216challenge the Southwest Florida Water Management Districts
223(District), January 2, 1998, notice of intention to issue Water
233Use Permit (WUP) 207025.04 to Respondent Charles Bass (Bass).
242The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative
251Hearings, and this hearing subsequently ensued.
257In the interim, however, on October 16, 1998, the District
267issued to Bass Permanent Agricultural Exemption 9101145.00 which
275exempted 80 acres of the Bass property from District surface
285water permitting requirements. Quail Creek filed a request for
294hearing on the exemption as well, and this second issue was
305consolidated with the WUP issue for hearing. On February 24,
3151999, Bass withdrew his request for the exemption, and
324subsequently moved to dismiss the challenge to the exemption.
333The undersigned did not rule on the motion to dismiss either
344before or at the formal hearing. It is found, however, that with
356the withdrawal of the exemption request, the exemption, though
365granted by the District, is moot and of no force and effect, and
378Bass motion to dismiss the challenge thereto is granted.
387At the hearing on the remaining issue of the WUP, Quail
398Creek presented the testimony of Dayne R. Piercefield, a
407registered professional engineer and an expert in agricultural
415engineering, supplemental irrigation, agricultural irrigation
420practices and hydraulics; Eugene Drake, an employee of Quail
429Creek Farms; and David E. Ward, Jr., President of Quail Creek
440Farms, Inc. Petitioner also introduced Quail Creek Exhibits A
449through L. Respondent Bass presented the testimony of Nigel E.
459Morris, an ecologist and expert in the fields of ecology and
470agricultural permitting; John R. Garrett, a professional
477geologist and expert in the fields of hydrogeology water use
487permitting; and Mark A. Roberts, a former employee of Quail Creek
498Farms, Inc. Bass also introduced Bass Exhibits 1 through 66.
508The District presented the testimony of Brian S. Starford, a
518professional geologist and the water use regulation manager for
527the Districts Bartow service office, and an expert in the fields
538of consumptive water use permitting and groundwater modeling;
546Philip R. Cohen, a registered professional engineer and expert in
556the fields of agricultural irrigation practices and irrigation
564engineering; and Robert Viertel, the director of regulation in
573the Districts Bartow office and an expert in the fields of
584consumptive water use permitting and surface water permitting.
592The District also introduced District Exhibits 1 through 5.
601A transcript of the proceedings was furnished and thereafter
610all parties submitted written matters, to include proposed
618findings of fact and conclusions of law, and arguments in support
629thereof, which were carefully considered in the preparation of
638this Recommended Order.
641FINDINGS OF FACT
6441. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the
654Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District, was the
662state agency responsible for the management of water resources
671within the geographical area of 16 Florida counties which
680includes Hardee County, in which both properties in issue are
690located. The Districts authority to issue consumptive use
698permits for groundwater is found in Chapter 373, Florida
707Statutes.
7082. Petitioner, Quail Creek Farms, Inc., is a family-owned
717Florida corporation which incorporates approximately 2,350 acres
725in Hardee County, Florida. The property is used as a hunting
736preserve and for cattle and citrus farming. Quail Creek Farms,
746Inc., is located contiguous to and directly south of Respondent
756Bass property, consisting of approximately 1,380 acres, also in
766Hardee County. The Bass property is actually owned by Golden
776County Farms, Inc., in which Bass is a principal, and which
787directly and through tenant farming operates a vegetable farming
796operation thereon.
7983. Historically, Bass has grown agricultural crops,
805including tomatoes, on the property at least since the 1940s.
815Though approximately 745 acres of the property were available for
825crop cultivation prior to 1984, and remain available for
834production, it appears that prior to 1991, not all available land
845was in use at any one time. Farmed in a checkerboard approach,
857normally between 150 and 200 acres were under cultivation at any
868one time, with a maximum acreage in production of 240 acres.
879However, since 1991, annual acreage in production has increased
888to a present level in excess of 700 acres.
8974. Over the years, an amicable and friendly relationship
906between the Bass and Ward (Quail Creek) families has developed.
916Both properties are located in a rural area which also supports
927numerous similar farming operations within 10 to 20 miles of the
938properties. Use of the Bass property for crop farming, including
948tomatoes, is reasonable and consistent with land use practices in
958the area.
9605. Over the years, Bass has used, and continues to use, a
972semi-closed, seepage irrigation system to irrigate the row crops
981grown on the property. A semi-closed, seepage irrigation system
990is one which manages the water table beneath the crop root zone
1002through a series of furrows down which water is provided
1012periodically and as necessary to ensure the crop has sufficient
1022moisture for its growing needs. The water is pumped by well from
1034below ground and is thereafter channeled by pipe to the farm
1045field for use. The water is released by spigot or valve into
1057furrows between the raised crop rows from which it seeps into the
1069ground to raise the water table to just below the root zone of
1082the growing plants. The plants obtain the water from this level
1093by capillary action. Only sufficient water to raise the water
1103table to the proper level is released into the furrows, and to
1115ensure against run-off, the field is surrounded by collector
1124swales and perimeter ditches to catch and retain any excess water
1135which might reach the farthest end of the row without seeping
1146into the ground.
11496. A semi-closed, seepage irrigation system, as is in
1158existence on the Bass property, should result in only a minimal
1169run-off if the system is properly maintained and operated.
1178Irrigation systems are not designed to be the primary source of
1189water for crops, but are designed to provide sufficient
1198supplemental water, above and beyond natural rainfall, to satisfy
1207the crop water need in a two-in-ten rainfall system (the driest
1218two years out of ten). The greater the rainfall, the less
1229irrigation water is needed, and it is the responsibility of the
1240farmer to turn on and shut off the water to the furrows so as to
1255provide only the water needed by the crop. It is not to the
1268farmers advantage to provide more water than is needed, for
1278several reasons. The pumping of water is expensive due to the
1289high cost of a power source for the pump. Also, too much water
1302raises the water table to a level where the roots of the plant
1315are either too shallow to support the plant in times of less
1327rainfall, or the roots drown in the overabundance of water.
13377. The use of pumped groundwater for crop irrigation is
1347reasonable and consistent with farming practices in the local
1356area. Semi-closed, seepage irrigation of row crops is a common
1366practice among row crop farmers in the area of the Bass property.
1378The system utilized by Bass is typical of this type of system and
1391its use is consistent with irrigation practices in the area.
14018. Mr. Bass pumps his water from three wells on the
1412property. The permit applies to the total amount of water taken
1423by the three existing wells. One well is an 8-inch diameter well
1435constructed to a depth of 800 feet and cased to a depth of 400
1449feet. The second well is a 12-inch diameter well which is
1460drilled to a depth of 985 feet and cased to a depth of 195 feet.
1475The third well is a 16-inch diameter well which is drilled to a
1488total depth of 1,500 feet and cased down to 400 feet. Whereas
1501wells one and three draw only from the Floridan Aquifer, well two
1513draws from both the Floridan (lower) and intermediate aquifer.
15229. Bass has had a water consumptive use permit issued by
1533the District since 1983 based on which he has pumped water for
1545crop irrigation. The original permit, 207025.00, issued in April
15541983, authorized withdrawal from one well at an annual average
1564rate of 253,000 gallons per day (GPD) and a maximum daily rate of
1578760,000 GPD. When the permit was renewed in February 1991
1589(207025.01), withdrawal was authorized from four wells for a
1598combined annual average rate of 1,280,000 GPD and a combined peak
1611monthly rate of 6,000,000 GPD. The permit was modified by letter
1624(207025.02) to change the location of one well without changing
1634any of the permitted quantities. In August 1994, the current
1644permit (207250.03) authorized withdrawal from only three wells
1652with a combined annual average of 2,950,000 GPD and a combined
1665peak monthly rate of 7,740,000 GPD. The current permit
1676authorizes withdrawal of water for 745 acres for each of a spring
1688and fall tomato crop, utilizing the semi-closed seepage
1696irrigation system for both.
170010. In 1991, Bass significantly increased the number of
1709acres under cultivation. A District visit to the property in
1719December 1991, revealed grading and construction activities under
1727way. Acreage under cultivation had increased to approximately
1735700 acres in tomatoes planted in raised rows under plastic.
1745Disking and ditching had taken place in and around 4.56 acres of
1757wetlands, and a new surface water management system had been
1767constructed on approximately 25 acres of previously uncultivated
1775land. Water was observed being discharged from the ditches on
1785the Bass property onto Quail Creek land, which resulted in a
1796flooding of portions of Quail Creek, the clogging of canals, and
1807the death of several wooded areas presumably due to excess water.
181811. In February 1992, the District issued a Compliance
1827Notice to Bass advising him that the land readjustment activities
1837under way constituted construction of an unpermitted surface
1845water management system and was a violation of statute and
1855departmental rule. On March 23, 1992, Bass questioned the
1864Districts determination that a permit was required, but three
1873days later, on March 26, 1992, the District issued a Notice of
1885Violation.
188612. Adverse impacts continu ed to occur to Quail Creek
1896property, allegedly due to Basss activities. Finally, in
1904September 1992, Bass applied for a general construction permit
1913from the District for a surface water management system. As a
1924part of this system for which a permit was sought, Basss
1935engineers addressed the historical farming pattern on the
1943property and attempted to resolve several problems by
1951incorporating into the design certain features which were
1959supposed to slow down the runoff from the Bass farm fields.
197013. On Jun e 29, 1993, the District and Bass entered into a
1983Consent Order which found that 745 acres of farm fields and
1994related surface water facilities had existed prior to
2002October 1, 1984, and, therefore, did not require a surface water
2013management permit for their continued use. Quail Creek was not a
2024party to this Consent Order. In addition, however, the District
2034found that 25 acres of farm fields and related facilities had
2045been created after October 1, 1984, and those acres required a
2056surface water management permit for their continued use.
2064Bass applied for and obtained the required permit (40105.05.00)
2073from the District on April 23, 1993. Bass was also required to
2085pay a monetary penalty to the District. On May 24, 1994, the
2097District transferred the surface water management permit to a
2106permanent operation status.
210914. Basss WUP permit 207025.03 was due to expire on
2119February 14, 1997, and he filed an application (207250.04) to
2129renew it on February 13, 1997. In his application, Bass
2139requested authority to withdraw water from his existing three
2148wells at a combined annual average rate of 4,783,500 GPD and a
2162combined peak monthly rate of 8,030,300 GPD for the existing
2174semi-closed seepage irrigation of two 745-acre tomato crops, one
2183each in the spring and the fall. The 745 acres to be used for
2197these two crops have been determined to either not require a
2208surface water management permit under the Consent Order or be
2218covered under the existing surface water management permit
222640105.05.00.
222715. After Basss applicati on for renewal was received by
2237the District in February 1997, as a part of the processing it was
2250referred to a professional geologist, Mr. Balser, who, in March
22601997, requested additional information. Balsers request
2266included a reference to a "required" Environmental Resource
2274Permit Agricultural Rule Exemption. The use of the term
"2283required" in reference to that element was in error as it is not
2296required but only recommended. Nonetheless, Bass applied for the
2305exemption on September 15, 1997. Action on the renewal
2314application had been delayed until after the application for the
2324exemption was filed, and the District granted the exemption on
2334October 16, 1998. Processing of the renewal application then
2343continued until Bass withdrew his request for the exemption on
2353February 23, 1999.
235616. In the course of evaluation of Basss renewal
2365application, the District utilized its Agricultural Water Use
2373Calculation Model to review the reasonableness of the requested
2382quantities, and a groundwater flow model identified as "MODFLOW"
2391to evaluate the impacts of the proposed withdrawals under the
2401permit. Use of this model indicated that the quantities of water
2412requested by Bass were reasonable and needed for his proposed
2422agricultural operation. However, there also was some possibility
2430shown that the withdrawals might adversely impact some off-site
2439wells. As a result, Mr. Balser suggested to Bass that the
2450quantities of water sought under the permit be reduced.
245917. Consistent with that request, on December 9, 1997,
2468Bass amended his renewal application so as to reduce the acreage
2479allotment for both the spring and fall crops from 745 acres to
2491600 acres each planting. This resulted in a reduction in the
2502annual average withdrawal rate by 1,053,800 GPD, and in the peak
2515monthly rate by 1,563,000 GPD. With the receipt of this
2527amendment in quantities requested, the District declared the
2535application complete. Utilizing the models described, Mr. Balser
2543determined that the amount of supplemental water requested by
2552Bass was reasonable and consistent with the Districts permitting
2561criteria. These findings were approved by the reviewing
2569authority.
257018. On January 2, 1998, the District indicated its
2579intention to issue a ten-year renewal permit to Bass authorizing
2589withdrawals at a combined annual average rate of 3,729,700 GPD,
2601and a combined peak monthly rate of 6,467,300 GPD for irrigation
2614of both a spring and fall tomato crop of 600 acres each on the
2628Bass property. Incorporated in the permit were the standard
2637permit conditions provided for by Rule 40D-2.381(3), Florida
2645Administrative Code, and seven special conditions tailored
2652specifically for this permit. This proposed agency action was
2661modified by the District on March 9, 1999, when it moved back the
2674deadline for the Tailwater Feasibility Report called for in
2683Special Condition 6 from May 1, 1998 to December 1, 1999, and
2695added two other special conditions. With the exception of those
2705modifications, the January 2, 1998, proposed agency action has
2714not been changed.
271719. The change s in the withdrawal gallons stipulated in the
2728permit include an increase of 779,700 GPD in the annual average
2740rate currently permitted, but a decrease of 1,272,700 GPD in the
2753peak monthly rate. The notice of proposed agency action was sent
2764by certified mail to Petitioner on January 2, 1998, and received
2775on January 5, 1998. Quail Creek filed its petition for
2785administrative hearing with the District on January 21, 1998,
2794sixteen days after receipt of the notice of proposed agency
2804action.
280520. There is littl e doubt that Petitioner has suffered an
2816increase in surface water problems on its property since late
28261991, when Bass first increased the number of acres he had in row
2839crop production. Petitioner claims that by that time
2847approximately 700 acres of tomatoes were planted under plastic,
2856and that disking and ditching had occurred around and in a 4.56-
2868acre wetlands parcel on the Bass property. Petitioners
2876investigation indicated that a new surface water management
2884system had been constructed on 25 acres of previously unfarmed
2894land and that water was being discharged from the Bass ditches on
2906to Quail Creek Farms which resulted in an alteration of the area
2918hydrology.
291921. In January 1992, Quail Creeks president, Mr. Ward,
2928observed extensive amounts of water flowing into Quail Creeks
2937canal systems as a result of super saturation of the Bass
2948cropland. Mr. Ward is convinced this was due to increased water
2959from irrigation which was applied to land already saturated by
2969unusually heavy rains experienced in the area at that time. In
2980early February 1992, following a 1.2-inch rainfall, Mr. Ward,
2989accompanied by his foreman, Mr. Drake, toured the Quail Creek
2999property abutting the Bass farm and noticed that the water in the
3011Quail Roost canal system rose by two to three feet after the
3023rain. Mr. Ward is convinced the rise in water level is a direct
3036result of irrigation being applied to land already saturated by
3046the rain.
304822. In March 1992, District officials viewed the property
3057in issue and determined that surface water management
3065construction was being undertaken by Bass, and as a result of
3076subsequent negotiations, the technicalities regarding the
3082permitting of this system were worked out to the satisfaction of
3093the District.
309523. The outflow of surface water from the Bass farm onto
3106Quail Creek did not abate however. In April 1992, measures were
3117undertaken which were designed to curb the continued flooding by
3127adding additional dirt to the Quail Creek dike. This did not
3138correct the problem, however. In June 1993, photographs of the
3148area in question revealed that large amounts of soil had been
3159washed off the Bass property into the Quail Creek ditch near the
3171lone 60-inch culvert at the junction with the north canal. Quail
3182Creek also increased the size of its culverts in an effort to
3194provide some relief from the flooding.
320024. By the end of summer in 1995, Quail Creek management
3211again found it necessary to add more dirt to the top of its dikes
3225in an effort to stem the water flow from the Bass property, and
3238to dredge again the canal in an effort to stem the flow of water
3252coming from the Bass property. As late as February 1997, it
3263continued to dig from its canals dirt which it contends had been
3275placed there by the flood waters coming from Basss property. It
3286also added a 66-inch culvert to that already installed in an
3297effort to control the water flow.
330325. During the period in issue, several noticeable factors
3312have taken place on the Quail Creek property just south of its
3324property line with Bass which may be attributed to excessive
3334water influx. Included among these are the death of oak trees,
3345the death of grass areas and areas of other vegetation, and the
3357clogging of Quail Creeks drainage system.
336326. Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, is the
3371rule applied by the District in its determination of permit
3381entitlement. This rule requires an applicant for a permit to
3391demonstrate that the proposed water use is beneficial, is in the
3402public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal
3412use of water. The applicant can demonstrate these requirements
3421by providing the reasonable assurances outlined in subsections
3429(a) through (n) of the cited rule section.
343727. To be sure, while the major emphasis of water use
3448permitting relates to the effect of the withdrawal on quality and
3459availability of water remaining for the use and enjoyment of
3469others, consideration is also given in the Basis of Review (BOR)
3480to the impacts of withdrawals and discharges on the surface water
3491management system design in terms of percolation rates, storage
3500volumes, design changes, and the like. The standards and
3509criteria listed in the BOR are to be used to provide the
3521reasonable assurances required by the rule.
352728. The "reasonable demand" criterion requires a showing
3535that agricultural irrigation is necessary in an amount certain.
3544This information is normally provided using the AGMOD, a computer
3554program based on the Blaney-Criddle methodology, which is used to
3564determine supplemental irrigation requirements for a particular
3571crop, using specific soil type, rainfall, and other variables for
3581a 2 in 10 year drought event. The quantity of supplemental
3592irrigation needed, as estimated by AGMOD, is generally the
3601minimum amount of water needed under drought conditions for
3610optimal crop production, and it does not include any allowance
3620for waste or runoff. This model, AGMOD, has been proven reliable
3631in the field, and provides to the District a consistent approach
3642for use in evaluating WUP requests.
364829. In the instant case, the evidence indicates the AGMOD
3658simulation utilized was properly set up and run. Under the
3668circumstances of this case, it is found that Bass has
3678demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his
3687proposed water request will satisfy a reasonable demand, and the
3697use of the water for crop cultivation is a reasonable use for the
3710water. By the same token, the use and proposed method of
3721irrigation are reasonable for the area, and the quantities
3730estimated by AGMOD reflect the supplemental irrigation
3737requirements of the specific crop Bass proposes to cultivate on
3747the acreage allowed. Notwithstanding Petitioners contention
3753that Bass has not shown a need for additional water and should be
3766limited to that amount of water at the rate in his current
3778permit, no convincing evidence to support this contention was
3787introduced. To the contrary, it would appear that if Bass were
3798limited to irrigation at the current rate of withdrawal, and
3808should a 2-in-10-year drought occur, he would be able to irrigate
3819only approximately 475 of his 600 acres. Assuming proper
3828operation and maintenance of the system, the water from
3837irrigation should not contribute to flooding of Quail Creek
3846property.
384730. An applicant is also required to provide reasonable
3856assurances that the proposed use will not cause quantity or
3866quality changes which adversely impact water resources, including
3874both ground and surface waters. This criteria addressed changes
3883caused by withdrawal of water from the ground or a surface body
3895of water and do not envision changes resulting from the
3905subsequent use of the water, such as runoff. In other words, the
3917question is whether Basss use of the water will result in a
3929diminishment of Petitioners water assets.
393431. To determine this, water managers utilize MODFLOW, a
3943groundwater flow computer model which identifies draw-down
3950impacts caused by the proposed peak monthly withdrawal rate
3959during a 90-day period with no effective rainfall. This computer
3969model, developed by the United States Geological Survey, is
3978widely accepted as a predictive tool by experts in the hydrology
3989and hydrogeology communities, including the District.
399532. Petitioner has asserted that runoff of irrigation water
4004from the Bass property, caused by unnecessary irrigation of
4013property heavily covered by impenetrable plastic mulch, which is
4022already saturated by rainfall, will cause the adverse changes to
4032both the quality and quantity of water available to it which the
4044rule envisions. This is, however, an interpretation of the rule
4054which is contrary to the Districts historic interpretation and
4063is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. In any
4074case, Petitioner has failed to present evidence to establish that
4084the standing and run-off water shown in the photographs placed in
4095evidence, and which allegedly had an adverse impact on surface
4105water management on Quail Creek Farms, was the result of
4115irrigation rather than the excessive rainfall experienced in the
4124area at the time. To the contrary, the testimony of Mark
4135Roberts, the former ranch hand, raised a serious question
4144regarding the source of the runoff. Mr. Roberts recalls that in
41551992 and 1993, when the alleged flooding of Petitioners property
4165took place, the source of the flood waters was Petitioners
4175property rather than that of Bass.
418133. The evidence of record indicates that the water use
4191proposed for use under the permit application will not cause
4201changes in either the quality or quantity of the water resources
4212available. Results of the MODFLOW analysis done by the District
4222in this case indicates that the draw-down of the water table at
4234the parameters explored will be less than one foot, and an impact
4246of this minimal magnitude is too small to cause an adverse change
4258in either the quantity or quality of the water resource within
4269the measurement parameters.
427234. Another factor for consideration in the evaluation of a
4282permit application is the requirement that the applicant provide
4291reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause
4300adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams,
4307estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources. It
4316must be noted here that the impacts referenced in the rule in
4328this regard are impacts resulting from the withdrawal, and not
4338such other factors as runoff. In the evaluation of withdrawal
4348results, MODFLOW is the tool most often used. Again, use of
4359MODFLOW indicates that the anticipated draw-down occasioned by
4367the anticipated withdrawals will be less than one foot. This
4377impact is considered minimal and not likely to cause any adverse
4388impact to the protected areas cited.
439435. Still another factor for consideration in permit
4402application evaluation is the requirement that the applicant give
4411reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not cause water
4421levels or rates-of-flow to deviate from the ranges set forth in
4432Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. The District has not
4441adopted water levels or rates-of-flow for those water bodies
4450envisioned by this rule other than to establish minimum levels
4460for some lakes within its jurisdiction. However, none of these
4470lakes are on or near the Bass property, and this requirement is
4482not applicable to the instant application.
448836. An applicant must also provide reasonable assurances
4496that the proposed use will utilize the lowest water quality
4506useable by the applicant for the intended purpose, or a lower
4517quality water if available and useable for a portion of the
4528intended use. Included within the "lower quality water" category
4537is such water as recovered agricultural tailwater and collected
4546storm water.
454837. In the instant case , the evidence shows that Bass will
4559use the lowest quality water that is available and economically
4569feasible for use. The majority of Basss water comes from the
4580Floridan Aquifer which is of poorer quality than the intermediate
4590aquifer under the Bass property. As to other potential sources,
4600the evidence indicates that if the MODFLOW allotments are
4609followed, there should be no tailwater available for use, and the
4620use of collected storm water is neither feasible nor consistent
4630with local agricultural practices.
463438. One of the requirements for issuance of a permit is a
4646showing of reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not
4656significantly induce saltwater intrusion. It is the opinion of
4665District evaluators, and the evidence of records shows, that the
4675property in issue is too far from a saltwater source for there to
4688be any meaningful risk of lateral saltwater intrusion as a result
4699of the proposed withdrawals. Further, the MODFLOW analysis
4707suggests that the impact of groundwater withdrawal as a result of
4718the permitted activity would be too light to cause any upcoming
4729of saline water from a lower aquifer.
473639. Another permit requirement relates to the applicant
4744providing reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not
4753cause pollution of the aquifer. Information available to the
4762District indicates there are no known contaminants in the aquifer
4772system in the vicinity of the Bass property, and because of the
4784rural nature of the property the existence of such plumes is
4795unlikely. However, even were one or more to exist, MODFLOW
4805indicates the withdrawals proposed under the permit applied for
4814would be minimal and unlikely to cause or permit any
4824contamination.
482540. The applicant is also required to provide reasonable
4834assurance that the proposed water use will not adversely impact
4844off-site land uses existing at the time of the application.
4854Quail Creek has indicated that its property is used for cattle
4865and citrus cultivation, and the photographic evidence presented
4873by it would clearly indicate that the specific land receiving the
4884off-site flow is used primarily for cattle grazing. Evidence of
4894cattle deaths, as presented, failed to indicate that the deaths
4904were the result of water flow over the land. In any case, the
4917thrust of the rule deals with the result of withdrawal, not the
4929subsequent consumptive use of the runoff onto the property. In
4939this case, there is no evidence that the proposed water
4949consumption by Bass which exceeds his present consumption rate
4958will have any connection to Petitioners use of its land off the
4970pumping site.
497241. The District rules also require an applicant to provide
4982reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not adversely
4991impact an existing legal withdrawal. MODFLOW analysis clearly
4999indicates that proposed water consumption by Bass will not
5008adversely impact any existing withdrawals. The modeling done
5016reveals that the proposed withdrawals will result in a draw-down
5026in the water table outside the Bass property by less than a foot.
5039The draw-down in the aquifer outside the Bass property will not
5050exceed 5 feet except in the case of one area 4,900 feet to the
5065north of the Bass property. Quail Creek Farms, which lies to the
5077south of the Bass property should not be effected. These draw-
5088downs are well within the parameters set forth in BOR 4.8, which
5100holds that draw-downs in the water table of less than 2 feet, and
5113draw-downs in the aquifer of less than five feet are presumed not
5125to cause adverse impacts to existing legal withdrawals. However,
5134to ensure against any off-site impact as a result of approval of
5146the instant permit, the District has included Special Condition 2
5156in the proposed permit which requires Mr. Bass to investigate and
5167mitigate impacts to existing wells located within 4,900 feet of
5178these production wells.
518142. The District has not applied that provision of the Rule
519240D-2.301(1)(j) to the instant application evaluation. It
5199contends that the provision of BOR 4.9 which interprets that rule
5210to require the utilization of local water resources to the
5220maximum extent possible before considering more remote alternate
5228sources does not apply to applications for the withdrawal of
5238water to be used on the same property from which withdrawn.
5249Quail Creek disagrees with the District position, and suggests
5258that before Bass should be given permission to pump more water
5269from the ground, he should make use of collected storm water.
5280This suggestion is not consistent with the Districts long-term
5289interpretation of the rule.
529343. The rule under consideration here also requires the
5302applicant to provide reasonable assurances that his proposed use
5311will incorporate water conservation measures. In the instant
5319case, the evidence shows that Bass uses pipes rather than open
5330ditches to convey the water from the well-head to the irrigation
5341ditches. This minimizes evaporation. He also operates an on-
5350going leak detection and maintenance program for the system. He
5360conducts a continuing analysis of the systems efficiency. He
5369avoids daytime irrigation and other practices so as to minimize
5379evaporation. He has considered and continues to consider the
5388feasibility of converting his system to a more efficient one. He
5399has developed an irrigation schedule designed to maximize
5407efficiency of delivery; and he has endeavored to reduce or
5417eliminate runoff of water both to conserve water and to protect
5428streams.
542944. However, to ensure maximum compliance with the spirit
5438and letter of the rule, the District has attached Special
5448Conditions 5 and 6 to the permit. Special Condition 5 requires
5459Bass to continue implementing best management practices, and
5467Special Condition 6 requires him to look into the feasibility of
5478implementing a tailwater recovery system. If the run-off to
5487Petitioners property is the result of irrigation and not
5496rainfall, and this has not been effectively shown, implementation
5505of a tailwater recovery system should substantially reduce, if
5514not eliminate, it. Quail Creek contends these conditions will
5523not effectively address the problem because, it alleges, Bass has
5533been less than forthcoming in the representations made in his
5543application. This allegation is not effectively supported by the
5552evidence, however. Only Mr. Piercefield, testifying for
5559Petitioner, indicated that on his few visits to the Bass property
5570he had not observed any best management practices implemented,
5579nor had he seen any evidence of them in the Districts file. The
5592witnesses' testimony is not persuasive either in content or in
5602presentation.
560345. Another requirement of the rule in question is for the
5614applicant to provide to the District reasonable assurances that
5623it will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent
5632practicable. BOR 4.11 has defined "reclaimed water" as treated
5641wastewater effluent. The District has properly concluded that
5649wastewater effluent is not currently available for use by
5658Bass on his property and is not likely to be available in the
5671foreseeable future. Petitioner contends, however, that the rule
5679applies to water resources other than treated effluent, such as
5689storm water. This interpretation is contrary to the Districts
5698long-standing interpretation and practice, and Petitioner has not
5706supported it with any creditable evidence of record. Accepting,
5715arguendo , the correctness of Petitioners interpretation,
5721however, there is no indication that it would be technically
5731and/or economically feasible to utilize storm water for
5739irrigation on the Bass property.
574446. A requirement of the review process is that the
5754applicant provide the District with reasonable assurances that
5762the proposed use will not cause a waste of water. Waste is
5774defined in BOR 4.12 as causing excess water to run into a surface
5787water system. That is exactly what Petitioner claims is
5796happening here. However, Petitioner has not presented credible
5804evidence to demonstrate that it is irrigation water which is
5814running onto its property. On the other hand, the evidence
5824indicates that the Bass water allocation is based on a properly
5835developed and run AGMOD simulation which estimates the minimum
5844amount of supplemental irrigation water needed. It does not
5853provide enough water for waste or runoff.
586047. If Bass properly operates and maintains his semi-closed
5869irrigation system, and it is to his economic advantage to do so,
5881its use would result in only minimal runoff. In addition, the
5892implementation of Special Condition 6, calling for a tailwater
5901recovery system, would further preclude the run-off of any excess
5911irrigation water and recycle it for further irrigation. In the
5921event all this fails, or in the event of unusual and unexpected
5933excessive rain should occur, Special Condition 7 in the permit
5943provides recourse to Petitioner.
594748. A final requirement of the permitting rule is the need
5958for the applicant to provide the District with reasonable
5967assurances that the proposed use will not be otherwise harmful to
5978the water resources of the District. Petitioner contends that
5987Bass has not shown compliance with BOR 2.2, which holds that a
5999permit application is not complete until the surface water
6008management permit application required by the District is deemed
6017complete and the impact of withdrawals on the applicants
6026existing permitted surface water management system is evaluated.
6034This requirement is not included in the permitting rule of the
6045District, 40D-2.301(1), and the District has historically not
6053required a showing of compliance.
605849. The District has taken the position here, however, that
6068Bass has complied with the provision. In this case, a surface
6079water management permit application was not required because the
6088area of the Bass property to be used for the growing of crops was
6102exempted from surface water management permitting by the District
6111in 1993. In addition, the withdrawal impact was evaluated for
6121Basss existing 25 acre permitted surface water management system
6130as a part of the MODFLOW analysis, and this analysis showed that
6142the projected withdrawal of groundwater would lower the water
6151table by much less than one foot. The District considers this to
6163be a minor impact and it is so found.
617250. Taken as a whole, the evidence of record indicates that
6183Bass operates an efficient and well-maintained irrigation system
6191which, used properly, is not likely to cause the run-off
6201attributed to it by Petitioner. Support for this determination
6210is seen in the fact that at the time of the worst flooding,
6223rainfall in the area was at significant highs. This is supported
6234by the testimony of Mr. Garrett, the hydrologist. In addition,
6244the evidence also shows that at those times of flood, the Bass
6256wells either were not operating at all or were operating at less
6268than permitted production. Further, it would be economically
6276inappropriate for Bass to flood his fields with more than
6286necessary water because of the cost of pumping, and the resultant
6297damage to crops.
6300CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
630351. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
6310jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this
6320case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
632552. As the applicant for a water use permit, Bass has the
6337initial burden to demonstrate his entitlement to the permit
6346sought. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. ,
6354396 So. 2d 778,787. Once, however, the applicant has presented
6365credible evidence of entitlement to the permit, the burden shifts
6375to the opponent, here Quail Creek Farms, Inc., Petitioner, to go
6386forward with the evidence. If Petitioner fails to carry the
6396burden as to controverted facts by a preponderance of the
6406evidence, the applicant must receive the permit.
641353. The basic criteria for approval of applications for
6422consumptive use permits of water are outlined in Section
6431373.223(1), Florida Statutes, which requires applicants to
6438demonstrate to the approval authority that the proposed water use
6448is a reasonable-beneficial use; that it will not interfere with
6458any presently existing legal use of water; and that it is
6469consistent with the public interest. Based on the authority
6478contained in this statute, the Southwest Florida Water Management
6487District has promulgated Rule 40D-2.301(1) Florida Administrative
6494Code, which establishes conditions for issuance of consumptive
6502use permits and which clarifies and implements the basic
6511requirements of the statute. This rule requires an applicant to
6521provide reasonable assurances, within the parameters of 14
6529separate areas of interest, that the proposed use of the water
6540satisfies the conditions for issuance.
654554. Rule 40D-2.301(1), Florida Administrative Code,
6551requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the
6560requested water use:
6563(a) is necessary to fulfill a certain
6570reasonable demand;
6572(b) will not cause quantity or quality
6579changes which adversely impact the water
6585resources, including both surface and ground
6591waters;
6592(c) will not cause adverse
6597environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes,
6602streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or
6608other natural resources;
6611(d) will not cause water levels or
6618rates of flow to deviate from the ranges set
6627forth in Chapter 40D-8;
6631(e) will utilize the lowest water
6637quality the applicant has the ability to use;
6645(f) will not significantly induce
6650saline water intrusion;
6653(g) will not cause pollution of the
6660aquifer;
6661(h) will not adversely impact off-site
6667land uses existing at the time of the
6675application;
6676(i) will not adversely impact an
6682existing legal withdrawal;
6685(j) will utilize local water resources
6691to the greatest extent practicable;
6696(k) will incorporate water conservation
6701measures;
6702(l) will incorporate reuse measures to
6708the greatest extent practicable;
6712(m) will not cause water to go to
6720waste; and
6722(n) will not otherwise be harmful to
6729the water resources within the District.
673555. Rule 40D-2.301(3), Florida Administrative Code,
6741requires the District, in its evaluation of an application for a
6752consumptive use water permit, to utilize standards and criteria
6761contained in the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit
6771Applications (BOR) which is found in Rule 40D-2.091, Florida
6780Administrative Code.
678256. A thorough consideration of the evidence presented at
6791the hearing establishes that Bass has provided the reasonable
6800assurances required that his proposed water use complies with the
6810conditions for issuance of the permit outlined in Rule 40D-
68202.301(1), Florida Administrative Code. In arriving at that
6828conclusion, one must evaluate the application in light of the
6838Three Prong Test mentioned above.
684357. A proper analysis of the situation confronted here
6852reveals that the thrust of the water regulations is to fully
6863protect the rights to water in this state. The Florida Water
6874Resources Act of 1972, codified in Part II of Chapter 373,
6885Florida Statutes, states that the purpose of the Act is to
6896provide for conservation of the available water resources while
6905maximizing the beneficial use of the resources. Quail Creek
6914Farms complaint alleges injuries caused by surface run-off, and
6923it is not this injury for which the specific process in issue
6935here was designed to protect.
694058. Utilizing the criteria set out of Rule 40D-2.301(1),
6949Florida Administrative Code, as clarified and interpreted
6956consistent with the BOR, it is clear that Bass has provided to
6968the District the reasonable assurances called for that are called
6978for in the Three Prong Test and the Code provision. By the same
6991token, Quail Creek has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance
7001of the evidence that Basss use is inconsistent with the
7011requirements, spirit, and intent of the regulatory legislation
7019and the rules implemented thereunder.
7024SUPPLEMENTAL MATTERS
702659. On February 24, 1999, Bass filed a Motion To Tax
7037Attorneys Fees, Experts Fees, and Costs against Quail Creek,
7046citing as authority therefore Sections 120.569(2)(c) and
7053120.595(1), Florida Statutes. Both sections provide for the
7061taxing of monetary sanctions against a party who the
7070administrative law judge finds participated in the proceeding for
7079an improper purpose. Subsection (e) of Section 120.595(1),
7087defines participation for an improper purpose as participation
7095primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for
7105frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing
7115or securing the approval of an activity. Though, as found above,
7126Quail Creeks protest against the issuance of the renewal of
7136Basss permit was not supported by a preponderance of the
7146evidence, that shortcoming does not rise to the level of
7156impropriety so as to support the taxing of fees and costs.
7167Therefore, the Motion To Tax Attorneys Fees, Experts Fees, and
7177Costs is denied.
7180RECOMMENDATION
7181Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
7191Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water
7200Management District enter a Final Order approving water use
7209permit 207025.04 to Charles Bass as proposed.
7216DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in
7226Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
7230___________________________________
7231ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
7234Administrative Law Judge
7237Division of Administrative Hearings
7241The DeSoto Building
72441230 Apalachee Parkway
7247Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
7250(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
7254Fax Filing (850) 921-6947
7258www.doah.state.fl.us
7259Filed with the Clerk of the
7265Division of Administrative Hearings
7269this 27th day of April, 1999.
7275COPIES FURNISHED:
7277Timothy A. Hunt, Esquire
7281Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A.
7286101 East Kennedy Boulevard
7290Suite 3700
7292Tampa, Florida 33602
7295Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
7302David M. Caldevilla, Esquire
7306Charles R. Fletcher, Esquire
7310de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales
7316101 East Kennedy Boulevard
7320Suite 3400
7322Tampa, Florida 33602
7325Margaret Lytle, Esquire
7328Tony Muntchler, Esquire
7331Southwest Florida Water
7334Management District
73362379 Broad Street
7339Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
7342Edward B. Helvenston, General Counsel
7347Southwest Florida Water
7350Management District
73522379 Broad Street
7355Brooksville, Florida 34609
7358F. Perry Odom, General Counsel
7363Department of Environmental Protection
73673900 Commonwealth Boulevard
7370Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
7373E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director
7379Southwest Florida Water
7382Management District
73842379 Broad Street
7387Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
7390NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
7396All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15
7407days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
7418this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will
7429issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 07/06/1999
- Proceedings: Notice of Entry of Final Order filed.
- Date: 05/24/1999
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Response to the Bass Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/27/1999
- Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held March 9 through 12, 1999.
- Date: 04/09/1999
- Proceedings: Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management Distric`ts Argument and Comments on Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 04/08/1999
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 04/08/1999
- Proceedings: Charles Bass` Proposed Recommended Order; Charles Bass` Closing Argument and Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 03/30/1999
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte, Jr.) Notice of Filing Post-Hearing Stipulation; Post-Hearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/24/1999
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript of Final Hearing; (4 Volumes) Transcript w/exhibits filed.
- Date: 03/19/1999
- Proceedings: de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales, P.A.`s Notice of Address Change filed.
- Date: 03/09/1999
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 03/08/1999
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte) Notice of Continuing Depositions Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/08/1999
- Proceedings: Bass` Motion to Dismiss (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/08/1999
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte) Notice of Filing Original Deposition Transcripts; Deposition of: David E. Ward, Jr. ; Deposition of: Eugene Drake ; Deposition of: Dayne Piercefield ; Deposition of: Clarence E. Comer filed.
- Date: 03/05/1999
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Response to the Bass Motion to Tax Attorneys` Fees, Experts` Fees and Costs (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/01/1999
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed.
- Date: 03/01/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/01/1999
- Proceedings: (C. Fletcher) Notice of Withdrawal of Application rec`d
- Date: 02/25/1999
- Proceedings: Bass` Motion to Tax Attorneys` Fees, Experts` Fees and Costs Against Quail Creek Farms rec`d
- Date: 02/24/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 02/24/1999
- Proceedings: Order Granting Site Inspection sent out. (motion granted)
- Date: 02/22/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of (Telephonic) Hearing (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 02/19/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Site Inspection w/cover letter (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 02/18/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Site Inspection (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 02/17/1999
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 01/20/1999
- Proceedings: Order Correcting Style of Case sent out.
- Date: 01/19/1999
- Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Ordering Consolidation sent out. (98-2417 & 98-5607 consolidated; hearing set for March 9-12, 1999; 9:00am; Tampa)
- Date: 01/11/1999
- Proceedings: Charles Bass` Response to Quail Creek`s First Request to Produce; Charles Bass` Notice of Serving Answers to Quail Creek`s First Interrogatories to Charles Bass filed.
- Date: 01/06/1999
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte) Notice of Telephonic Hearing (1/14/99; 10:00 a.m.) filed.
- Date: 12/21/1998
- Proceedings: Order Setting Hearing sent out. (1/26/99 hearing reset for March 9-12, 1999; 9:00am; Tampa)
- Date: 12/21/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/18/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Site Inspection (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/14/1998
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Response to the Bass Motion to Dismiss (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/07/1998
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s First Request to Produce; Quail Creek`s, Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Charles Bass filed.
- Date: 12/04/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Pollock from T. Hunt (RE: notice of response date) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/03/1998
- Proceedings: Quail Creel`s Notice of Serving First Interrogatoreis to Charles Bass; Quail Creek`s First Request to Produce (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/02/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request for Entry Upon Land for Inspection (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/01/1998
- Proceedings: Bass` Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
- Date: 11/30/1998
- Proceedings: Bass` Motion to Dismiss Petition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/19/1998
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte) Notice of Rescheduling Site Inspection filed.
- Date: 11/17/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Cancellation (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/16/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Site Inspection filed.
- Date: 11/16/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Rescheduling Deposition filed.
- Date: 11/12/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/12/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Cancellation (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/12/1998
- Proceedings: Bass` Response to Quail Creek`s Motion to Continue Mediation and Hearing filed.
- Date: 11/12/1998
- Proceedings: Bass` Response to Quail Creek`s Motion to Consolidate filed.
- Date: 11/09/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/09/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/09/1998
- Proceedings: (Bass) Notice of Rescheduling Deposition filed.
- Date: 11/09/1998
- Proceedings: (Bass) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Mark Farrell filed.
- Date: 11/06/1998
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Notice of Seving Answers to Charles Bass` First Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/06/1998
- Proceedings: Quail Creek`s Motion for Consolidation (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/05/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Fletcher) Notice of Filing Returns of Service; (4) Return of Service; (4) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed.
- Date: 11/05/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Continue Mediation and Hearing (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 10/26/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Mark Farrell filed.
- Date: 10/26/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 (b)(6) filed.
- Date: 10/26/1998
- Proceedings: (C. Bass) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of David E. Ward, Jr.; (C. Bass) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Gene Drake filed.
- Date: 10/13/1998
- Proceedings: Charles Bass First Request for Admissions to Quail Creek Farms, Inc. filed.
- Date: 10/09/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Certificate of Serving Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 08/28/1998
- Proceedings: Order Granting Additional Day for Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Nov. 23-25, 1998; 9:00am; Tampa)
- Date: 08/07/1998
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing reset for Nov. 24-25, 1998; 9:00am; Tampa)
- Date: 07/30/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- Date: 07/27/1998
- Proceedings: (E. de la Parte) Notice of Appearance filed.
- Date: 06/11/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Aug. 20-21, 1998; 9:00am; Tampa)
- Date: 06/11/1998
- Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 06/09/1998
- Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 05/28/1998
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 05/26/1998
- Proceedings: Agency Referral Letter; Notice Of Referral; Request for Formal Proceeding, letter form; Agency Action Letter (exhibits) filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
- Date Filed:
- 05/26/1998
- Date Assignment:
- 05/28/1998
- Last Docket Entry:
- 07/06/1999
- Location:
- Tampa, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO