98-002417 Quail Creek Farms, Inc. vs. Charles Bass And Southwest Florida Water Management District
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, April 27, 1999.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner has failed to show Respondent`s water use permit is not reasonable and consistent with terms of statute and rule.

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 District’s

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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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

1268farmer’s 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

1864District’s 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 Bass’s 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, Bass’s

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. Bass’s 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 Bass’s 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. Balser’s 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 Bass’s 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 District’s 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. Petitioner’s

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 Creek’s president, Mr. Ward,

2928observed extensive amounts of water flowing into Quail Creek’s

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 Bass’s 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 Creek’s 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 Petitioner’s 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 Bass’s use of the water will result in a

3929diminishment of Petitioner’s 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 District’s 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 Petitioner’s property

4165took place, the source of the flood waters was Petitioner’s

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 Bass’s 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 Petitioner’s 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 District’s 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 system’s 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

5487Petitioner’s 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 District’s 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 District’s

5698long-standing interpretation and practice, and Petitioner has not

5706supported it with any creditable evidence of record. Accepting,

5715arguendo , the correctness of Petitioner’s 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 applicant’s

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

6121Bass’s 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 Bass’s 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

7037Attorney’s 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 Creek’s protest against the issuance of the renewal of

7136Bass’s 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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
Date: 07/06/1999
Proceedings: Notice of Entry of Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/29/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
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
 

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):

Related Florida Rule(s) (3):