06-002464
Marion County, Florida vs.
C. Ray Greene, Iii; Angus S. Hastings; And St. Johns River Water Management District
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 9, 2007.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 9, 2007.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) Case No. 06 - 2464
23)
24C. RAY GREENE, III; ANGUS S. )
31HASTINGS; and ST. JOHNS RIVER )
37WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
41)
42Respondent s . )
46)
47RECOMMENDED ORDER
49Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative
56Hearings, by its duly designated Administrative Law Judge, J.
65Lawrence Johnston, held a formal administrative hearing in the
74above - styled case on October 4, 2006, in Ocala, Florida.
85APPEARANCES
86Petitioner Marion County:
89Thomas D. MacNamara , Esquire
93Marion County Attorney 's Office
98601 S outheast 25 th Ave nue
105Ocala, Florida 34471 - 2690
110Respondent St. Johns River Water Management District :
118Vance W. Kidder , Esquire
122St. Johns River Water Management
127District
1284049 Reid Street
131Palatka, Florida 3217 7 - 2529
137Respondents, C. Ray Greene, III , and Angus S. Hastings:
146Wayne E. Flowers , Esquire
150Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.
155245 Riverside Ave nue, Suite 150
161Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 4924
166STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
170The issue in this case is whether the portion of
180Consumptive Use Permit ( CUP ) Application Number 97106 seeking an
191allocation of 499,000 gall ons per day ( gpd ) of groundwater for
205commercial/industrial uses ( supply bulk water to bottling
213plants) m eets the condition s for issuance as established in
224Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code
231Rule 40C - 2.301, and the Applicants Ha ndbook, Consumptive Uses
242of Water. 1 The County does not oppose or contest the portion of
255the CUP application authorizing use of 6.0 m illion g p d of
268surface water for limerock mining operations.
274PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
276In April 2006, the St. Johns River Wa ter Management
286District (SJRWMD or District ) issued its Notice of Intent to
297grant a CUP to Respondents, C. Ray Greene, III , and Angus S.
309Hastings (Greene and Hastings, or Applicant) authorizing the use
318of 182.14 million gallons per year ( gp y ) (499,000 gpd average)
332of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer for
339commercial/industrial use (supply bulk water to bottling plants)
347and 1,416.0 m illion g p y (6.0 m illion g p d average ) of surface
365water for commercial/industrial use (limerock mining operation).
372The ground water allocation i s recommended for a 20 - year term ,
385and the allocation of surface water is recommended to extend
395through the end of 2006. Marion County (County) filed its
405Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) on June 26, 2006 ,
414contesting the Dist ricts Notice of Intent to issue a CUP to
426Greene and Hastings for the amounts of water noted above.
436Thereafter, this matter was referred to the Division of
445Administrative Hearings for appointment of an Administrative Law
453Judge to conduct a formal hearing on the Countys P etition
464pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Fl orida Stat utes.
472On June 26, 2006, Greene and Hastings filed a Motion to
483Dismiss Petition. On September 1, 2006, an Order was entered
493denying the M otion to Dismiss . On September 7, 2006, Greene and
506Hastings filed a Motion in Limine, seeking exclusion of
515testimony and exhibits regarding the Countys Comprehensive Plan
523or the Countys Land Development Regulations (LDRs) . An Order
533was entered on September 21, 2006 , granting the M otion in
544Limine .
546A pre - hearing stipulation was filed on September 29, 2006.
557At the final hearing, Greene and Hastings presented
565testimony from C. Ray Greene, III; Marty Sullivan, an expert in
576geotechnical engineering, environmental engineering , and
581groundwater modeling; Dr . Marc C. Minno, an expert in wetlands
592ecology, and assessment of environmental impacts associated with
600groundwater withdrawals; and Dwight T. Jenkins, an expert in
609hydrogeology and consumptive use permitting and regulation.
616Greene and Hastings introduced the ir E xhibits 1 - 7, which were
629received in evidence .
633The County presented testimony at the hearing from:
641Michael May, an expert in requirements of the Marion County Land
652Development Code , whose testimony was received only as a proffer
662based on the pre - h earing Order granting the Motion in Limine;
675M ounir Bouyounes, an expert in roadway design , whose testimony
685was received only as a proffer based on the Order on the Motion
698in Limine ; and Troy Kuphal, an expert in water resources
708planning. Counsel for the C ounty also presented a summary
718proffer of the testimony of Chris Rison, whose testimony was
728excluded based on the Order granting the Motion in Limine.
738County Exhibits 2 - 6 were received in evidence. An objection to
750County Exhibit 1 was sustained, and ruli ng was reserved on
761objections to County Exhibits 5 and 6 , which are now overruled.
772At the conclusion of the hearing, it was agreed that
782proposed recommended orders (PROs) would be filed by the parties
792no later than three weeks following filing of the tr anscript of
804testimony. A T ranscript of the testimony was filed on
814October 24, 2006 , but the parties' request to extend the time
825for filing PROs to November 22, 2006, was granted . E ach party
838timely - filed a PRO .
844On November 27, 2006, SJRWMD filed a Moti on to Strike an
856attachment to the County's PRO. The County filed a Response in
867opposition on December 6, 2006; Greene and Hastings did not file
878a response in the time allotted by Rule 28 - 106.204(1). Based on
891the filings, the Motion to Strike is granted.
899Except for the attachment to the County's PRO, the PROs
909have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended
918Order.
919F INDINGS OF FACT
923The Parties
9251. The County is a political subdivision of the State of
936Florida. The County operates a water s upply utility that
946supplies water for a variety of uses, including providing
955untreated water, in bulk, for bottling purposes. The County is
965currently engaged in a long - range planning effort designed to
976assess water supply demands and sources to supply tho se demands
987in the County over the next 50 years. T he County also has
1000completed a study of the two major springs in the County
1011( Rainbow Springs and Silver Springs) , and the Countys Board of
1022County Commissioners is in the process of enacting certain
1031recomm endations contained in the study.
10372. The well for the proposed CUP allocation is located on
1048approximately 160 acres in northern Marion County. Hastings and
1057Greene's father owned the property from 1978 until the latter's
1067death. In 1993, the latter's in terest was transferred to Greene
1078and two brothers, who now hold title to the property along with
1090Hastings .
10923. The District is a special taxing dist rict created by
1103Chapter 373, Florida Stat utes , and is charged with the duty to
1115prevent harm to water reso urces of the District, and to
1126administ er and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Stat utes , and the
1137rules promulgated thereunder. The District h as implemented
1145Chapter 373, Florida Stat utes , in part, through the adoption of
1156Rule Chapters 40C - 2 and 40C - 20 , and the Applicants Handbook,
1169Consumptive Uses of Water.
1173Historic Use s of Water on the Mine Site
11824. S ince the 1980s, the property where the proposed
1192withdrawals will occur has been used for mining of limerock and
1203has been k nown as the Black Sink Mine . "
12135. A ten - inch diameter well has been located on the Black
1226Sink Mine property for 35 years. The well was originally used
1237to provide water to augment water levels in canals in and around
1249the Black Sink Mine property . Later the well was used to
1261irrigate wate rmelons grown on the property before the mining
1271operation began.
12736. The limerock mining operation at Black Sink Mine uses
1283approximately 6 m illion g p d of surface water. The mine pit at
1297the site is divided by an earthen berm that separates a larger,
1309pre viously mined area from a smaller area where active mining is
1321occurring. Surface water is pumped from the actively mined
1330portion of the pit to the larger, previously mined portion of
1341the pit, to enable mining of the limerock material to be
1352conducted at le vels below the water table. Dewatering is
1362necessary in order to remove the limerock. A majority of the
1373property is mined to a depth of 55 feet below land surface. The
1386limerock material extracted from the site is transported by
1395trucks from the site, appr oximately 100 trucks per day, to
1406various sites across North Florida.
1411The Need for the Proposed Use of Groundwater
14197. If mining of limerock continues at the current pace ,
1429the limerock material at the Black Sink Mine will be exhausted
1440within a year. Rec ognizing that the productive use of the
1451property for limerock mining was nearing an end, Greene and
1461Hastings began exploring other potential uses for the property,
1470including use of the existing well on the property for
1480production of bottled water .
14858. T o explore the feasibility of producing water for
1495bottling from the existing well , in 2004 Greene and Hastings
1505engaged an engineering firm with expertise in water resources to
1515conduct a hydrogeologic study of the mine property and well .
1526The results of the study, showing water of sufficient quality
1536and quantity for production of bottled water, motivated Greene
1545and Hastings to submit the CUP application which was the subject
1556of the hearing. The study also determined that water withdrawn
1566from the well could b e marketed as spring water.
15769. Greene and Hastings also determined through market
1584research that the demand for bottled water has increased at the
1595rate of ten percent per year for the last 4 - 5 years and that
1610Florida bottlers were interested in purchasin g water from the
1620well on the mine site in bulk for bottling.
162910. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
1638water use proposed by Greene and Hastings is in such quantity as
1650is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, Greene and
1659Hastings must show that the amount to be used is consistent with
1671what would typically be required for the activity being
1680supplied; that the water will be used efficiently with loss or
1691waste minimized; and that there is a demonstrated need for the
1702water proposed fo r allocation.
17071 1 . To demonstrate a need for the 499,000 gpd of
1720groundwater requested in the application for an allocation of
1729499,000 gpd of groundwater, Greene and Hastings provided letters
1739from two businesses engaged in bottling of water stating an
1749in tent to purchase specific quantities of water produced from
1759the Greene and Hastings well should the CUP be granted. One of
1771the letters of intent came from a bottler in Jacksonville,
1781Florida, stating its intention to initially purchase 100,000 gpd
1791of Green e and Hastings s water . T he other was from a bottler in
1807Stuart, Florida, dated January 9, 2006, stating its intention to
1817purchase 125,000 gpd of water from Greene and Hastings within
1828the next 12 - 24 months . B ased on these letters Greene and
1843Hastings ini tially requested an allocation of 200,000 gpd of
1854groundwater for the first year of the permit.
18621 2 . Prior to completion of the CUP application, Greene and
1874Hastings learned that because the Stuart bottlers facility was
1883located outside the geographic bou ndaries of the District, to
1893transport water from the Black Sink Mine to th e Stuart facility
1905would require additional data and information related to inter -
1915district transfers of groundwater. Greene and Hastings elected
1923to reduce the requested allocation fo r the first year of the
1935permit to 100,000 gpd , relying on the letter from the
1946Jacksonville bottler .
19491 3 . Based on the current market demand for bottled water,
1961and based on the fact that there are other bottlers of water
1973with in the boundaries of the Distr ict purchasing water for
1984bottling , it is reasonable to conclude that Greene and Hastings
1994can sell 499,000 gpd of water from the well on the Black Sink
2008Mine property by the end of the fifth year of the proposed CUP.
2021These facts support the conclusion that there is a need for the
2033amount of water requested by Greene and Hastings .
204214. In addition, the permit is conditioned to r equire a
2053compliance review at five - year intervals during the term of the
2065permit. Should Greene and Hastings not be successful in sel ling
2076the full 499,000 gpd allocated by the fifth year of the permit,
2089the District h as the ability as part of the five - year compliance
2103review to modify the permit to reduce the allocation based on
2114the amount of water actually used for bottled water.
2123Effic iency of the Proposed Use of Water
21311 5. The production of water in bulk for shipment to a
2143bottler is a highly efficient use of water. There is very
2154little if any water lost in the withdrawal and loading of the
2166water; almost all the water goes to the end product. The
2177evidence establishes that the use proposed by Greene and
2186Hastings is an efficient use of water.
2193Potential Impacts from the Proposed Groundwater Allocation
22001 6 . The source of the groundwater proposed for use by
2212Greene and Hastings is the F loridan aquifer. Because there is
2223no confining layer in the vicinity of the Black Sink Mine that
2235would retard movement of water between the Upper Florida n
2245aquifer and the surficial aquifer, both the Upper Floridan
2254aquifer and the surficial aquifer essenti ally behave as one
2264unit. Thus, any drawdown in the surficial aquifer associated
2273with groundwater withdrawals at this location will be the same
2283as the related drawdown in the Upper Florida n aquifer as a
2295result of groundwater withdrawals.
22991 7 . The Florid a n aquifer is capable of producing the
2312amount of groundwater requested by Greene and Hastings in the
2322application.
23231 8 . To assess the level of drawdown expected to occur in
2336both the Florida n aquifer and the surficial aquifer as a
2347consequence of the propo sed groundwater withdrawals, Greene and
2356Hastings engaged a consultant , Andreyev Engineering, Inc., to
2364run a groundwater model to simulate the proposed withdrawal and
2374predict the anticipated drawdown.
23781 9 . The groundwater model selected for use for this
2389application was the North Central Florida Regional Groundwater
2397Flow Model, a model developed for the District by the University
2408of Florida for use in Marion County and surrounding areas. This
2419model is an accepted and reliable tool for predicting aquifer
2429d rawdown associated with groundwater withdrawals at the location
2438of the withdrawals proposed in this application and is used
2448extensively by the District in its CUP program.
245620 . To simulate the drawdown associated with the
2465withdrawal of 499,000 gpd from the Florida aquifer, Greene and
2476Hastings s consultant inserted a pumping well in the model grid
2487where the Black Sink Mine is located. The model then simulated
2498pumping from the well at 499,000 gpd. The model results are
2510graphically depicted on maps showin g drawdown contours overlain
2519on the Black Sink Mine Site, illustrating the level of drawdown
2530in the aquifer and the distance the level of drawdown extends
2541out from the well site.
254621 . The model predicts a drawdown of 0. 0 3 feet in the
2560Floridan and surfic ial aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the
2571well on the Black Sink Mine property , and a drawdown of 0. 0 2
2585feet in the Floridan and surficial aquifers extending out to a
2596distance of approximately 5,000 feet from the well , less than
26071/3 of an inch of drawdo wn . The model results represent a
2620reasonable estimation of the drawdown th at will occur as a
2631consequence of withdrawal of 499,000 gpd of groundwater at the
2642Black Sink Mine as proposed in the application.
265022 . The impact of the 0. 0 2 - 0. 0 3 foot drawdown p redicted by
2668the model was variously characterized by the experts who
2677testified at the final hearing as not practically measurable,
2688an insignificant impact, very small, or de minimus.
269823 . The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will
2710not cause significant saline water intrusion, nor will it
2719further aggravate any existing saline water intrusion problems.
2727The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will not induce
2739significant sa line water intrusion to such an extent as to be
2751inconsist ent with the public interest.
27572 4 . Because the predicted drawdown is so small, it will
2769not interfere with any existing legal uses of water. Neither
2779will the predicted drawdown cause serious harm to the quality of
2790the source of the water proposed for us e by Greene and Hastings .
28042 5 . With regard to the issue of interference with existing
2816legal users, the County argued that the District should have
2826considered whether there is sufficient groundwater available to
2834meet all projected needs for water in the County during the 20 -
2847year term of the permit , as well as the additional cost County
2859citizens will need to bear to secure alternative water supplies
2869as a result of any future shortfalls in available groundwater.
28792 6 . The County projects, based on plannin g estimates, that
2891use of groundwater to supply all anticipated uses of water in
2902the County will be limited within 20 - 30 years from the present .
2916Such limits w ould not become an issue until after the Greene
2928and Hastings permit expires. Thereafter, water users in the
2937County will have to rely on alternative water sources,
2946conservation, reuse of reclaimed water , and surface water. The
2955anticipated growth in demand in the Countys planning estimates
2964includes anticipated growth in the commercial/industrial
2970cat egory of uses. The Countys estimated limits on groundwater
2980use will occur whether or not the CUP requested by Greene and
2992Hastings is approved.
29952 7 . The District does not base its permitting decisions on
3007a pending CUP application on the possibility tha t the source of
3019water may become limited at some future time for water uses not
3031presently permitted , provided the application m eets all
3039permitting criteria. The District allocates water for
3046recognized beneficial uses of water, such as
3053commercial/industria l uses, as long as the water is available
3063and the application meets District criteria. The District
3071allocates water as long as an allocation does not cause harm to
3083the resource. Based on these facts , the proposed use of water
3094by Greene and Hastings will not interfere with any existing
3104legal use of water.
3108No Evidence of Economic o r Environmental Harm
311628. Because the predicted drawdown associated with the
3124proposed use of water is so small, and because no impacts are
3136anticipated on any surrounding propert ies or water uses, Greene
3146and Hastings have provided reasonable assurance that any
3154economic harm caused by the proposed use has been reduced to an
3166acceptable amount.
31682 9 . For purposes of determining whether an applicant has
3179provided reasonable assurance that any environmental harm caused
3187by a proposed use of water is reduced to an acceptable amount,
3199the District examines modeling results showing the level of
3208drawdown predicted for the use and also examines the resources
3218in and around the site of a withdr awal to determine the likely
3231impact of the drawdown predicted for the withdrawal on those
3241resources.
324230 . T he Districts environmental scientist s examined the
3252Black Sink Mine site and the surrounding landscape and
3261determined that , based on the character istics of the landscape
3271in and around the site of the proposed withdrawal and based on
3283the negligible drawdown impact predicted for the proposed water
3292use in both the Floridan and surficial aquifers, there will be
3303no environmental harm resulting from the a llocation of
3312groundwater contained in the CUP.
331731 . The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings will
3329not cause damage to crops, wetlands , or other types of
3339vegetation. The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings
3349will not cause the water table to be lowered so that stages or
3362vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands
3371other than those owned, leased , or otherwise controlled by
3380Greene and Hastings . The CUP will not use water that the
3392District has reserved pursuant to S ection 373.223(3), Fl orida
3402Stat utes , and Rule 40C - 2.301(4) .
3410No Impact on Established Minimum Flows or Levels
341832. No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface
3427water flows have been establish ed by the District pursuant to
3438Rule C hapter 40C - 8 for any of the water bodies in Marion County
3453that may be affected by the proposed water use.
346233. The closest water body for which the District has
3472established a minimum flow is the St. Johns River at the State
3484Road 44 bridge located more than 50 miles from the Bl ack Sink
3497Mine property. The closest water body for which the District
3507has established a minimum level is Star Lake in Northwest Putnam
3518County, more than nine miles from the mine site. Because of the
3530distance of these water bodies from the withdrawal site and
3540because of the negligible drawdown expected to be caused by the
3551proposed use of water, the use will not cause an established
3562minimum flow or level to be exceeded during the term of the
3574permit.
3575Other Reasonable - Beneficial Use Considerations
358134 . All available conservation measures that are
3589economically, environmentally , and technically feasible are
3595proposed for implementation in the application by Greene and
3604Hastings for the uses proposed by them. Greene and Hastings
3614submitted to the District , as pa rt of the application, a
3625conservation plan that complies with the requirements of A.H.
3634Section 10.3(e) .
363735 . Reclaimed water, as defined in the Districts rules ,
3647is not currently available to be used in place of the water
3659proposed for use by Greene and Hastings in the application.
36693 6 . The use of water proposed by Greene and Hastings in
3682the application will not cause or contribute to a violation of
3693water quality standards in receiving waters of the state.
37023 7 . The use of water proposed by Greene an d Hastings in
3716the application will not cause or contribute to flood damage.
3726The Use is Consistent With the Public Interest
37343 8 . With regard to the determination of whether reasonable
3745assurance was provided that the proposed use is consistent with
3755the p ublic interest, the County contend s that: 1 ) Greene and
3768Hastings must show that any necessary approvals required by the
3778Countys Comprehensive Plan and/or its LDRs for use of the site
3789for producing bottled water have been obtained; 2) that the
3799District did not properly consider the effect of existence of
3809lawn watering restrictions affecting citizens in the County in
3818evaluating the application; and 3) that the District should have
3828considered the amount of money the applicant may stand to gain
3839from the use of the water requested in the application.
38493 9 . In examining whether an application is consistent with
3860the public interest, the District considers whether a particular
3869use of water is going to be beneficial or detrimental to the
3881people of the area and to water resources within the state. In
3893this inquiry , the District considers whether the use of water is
3904efficient, whether there is a need for the water requested, and
3915whether the use is for a legitimate purpose ; and the inquiry
3926focuses on the impact of the use on water resources and existing
3938legal users.
394040 . Sale of water for bottling for human consumption is
3951recognized by the District as a legitimate, beneficial economic
3960enterprise. Use of water for human consumption is among the
3970highest and best uses permitted by the District. For reasons
3980outlined above in the Recommended Order, there a re no
3990detrimental impacts that will result from this use of water.
400041 . The District does not consider whether local
4009government approvals have been obtained prior t o issuance of a
4020CUP for purposes of determining whether the application is
4029consistent with the public interest. Neither does the District
4038consider impacts related to local roads from trucks transporting
4047the water or other impacts not related to water reso urces . No
4060such requirements are included in the Districts adopted
4068permitting criteria.
407042 . There are no water shortage orders in effect in the
4082District at present . In evaluating a CUP application, the
4092District considers whether its permitting criter ia will be met
4102during periods of normal weather as well as during periods of
4113drought. Withdrawals authorized in CUPs can be restricted by
4122order of the District during periods of water shortage, such as
4133droughts. Thus, the possibility of a water shortage order being
4143entered in the County in the future, or the fact that such
4155orders may have been in effect there in the past , does not mean
4168the application is not consistent with the public interest.
417743 . The District critically examines the efficiency of al l
4188water uses for purposes of enacting its regulatory requirements
4197regarding CUPs and in evaluating CUP applications. The District
4206has adopted restrictions on landscape irrigation (which apply to
4215all such users throughout the Districts jurisdiction, not j ust
4225in Marion County ) limit ing landscape irrigation to no more than
4237two days per week. The limitations on landscape irrigation
4246exist because this type of use has been determined to be a
4258highly inefficient , wasteful use of water without such
4266restrictions. By contrast, the use of water proposed by Greene
4276and Hastings is a highly efficient use of water, resulting in
4287little or no loss or waste of water .
429644 . The District does not consider the level of financial
4307gain or benefit an applicant will derive from a permitted use of
4319water for purposes of determining whether the proposed use is
4329consistent with the public interest. Most, if not all permitted
4339users of water derive some level of economic benefit f r o m the
4353water they use, and the Districts rule criteri a do not provide
4365standards for evaluating such gain or that otherwise limit the
4375amount of such gain.
437945 . For the foregoing reasons, the A pplicant has provided
4390reasonable assurance that the use of water proposed in the
4400application is consistent with the public interest.
4407Groundwater is the Lowest Quality Source for this Use
44164 6 . The County contends that groundwater is not the lowest
4428quality source of water available for the use proposed by Greene
4439and Hastings , in that surface water from the mine pit on the
4451site could be treated and used for bottling in place of
4462groundwater.
44634 7 . From the testimony, it is clear that Greene and
4475Hastings s ability to market water for bottling fro m the Black
4487Sink Mine is depende nt on such water being capable of being
4499labe led as spring water, and on such water being delivered
4510without having gone through any treatment processes. The
4518testimony also establishes that because of the connection
4526between the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at
4536the site, using surfa ce water instead of groundwater to supply
4547the proposed use would result in little if any reduction in
4558impacts to the Florida n aquifer.
45644 8 . More importantly, because the application propose s use
4575of water for direct human consumption, the Districts rule s do
4586not require use of a lower quality source of water.
459649. For the foregoing reasons, groundwater is the lowest
4605quality source of water suitable for use for bottled water for
4616human consumption.
4618The Districts Noticing Was Adequate and Appropriate
462550 . The District provided notice of its receipt of the
4636Greene and Hastings CUP application by publishing notice i n the
4647Ocala Star - Banner , a newspaper of general circulation in Marion
4658County , on January 25, 2005, with an amended notice being
4668published on February 16, 2005, and also by letters to the
4679County dated January 20, 2005, and February 10, 200 5 . In each
4692notice, the location of the proposed use was identified by
4702section, township , and range. The County responded to the
4711notice s by sending a letter of objection to the application
4722dated February 14, 2005. Thus, the County received sufficient
4731information regarding the location of the proposed use to enable
4741it to prepare and file a letter of objection to the application ,
4753and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the notice .
47645 1 . The District provided personal notice of its intent to
4776issue a CUP to Greene and Hastings by letter dated April 5,
47882006. In this notice , the location of the proposed use was
4799identified by section, township , and ra n ge. The County
4809responded by filing petitions that have resulted in this
4818proceeding. Thus, the County received sufficient notice of the
4827location of the use addressed in the Districts intent to issue
4838to enable it to initiate administrative proceedings regarding
4846t he permit , and suffered no prejudice as a consequence of the
4858notice.
4859CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4862Burden of Proof and Initial Burden of Presenting Evidence
48715 2 . Greene and Hastings , as applicants for the CUP in
4883issue here, have the initial burden of presenting a p rima facie
4895case of entitlement to the permit. Florida Dept. of
4904Transportation v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1 st DCA
49171981).
49185 3 . Applicant s burden of proof is to provide reasonable
4930assurance, rather than absolute guarantees, that the condition s
4939for issuance of a CUP have been met. See City of Sunrise v.
4952Indian Trace Community Development District, et al. , DOAH Case
4961No. 91 - 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991,
4976SFWMD 1992); Manasota - 88 Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and
4987Departme nt of Environmental Regulation , DOAH Case No. 87 - 2433,
49981990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DER 1990). The term reasonable
5008assurance means a substantial likelihood that the project can
5017be successfully implemented. Metropolitan Dade County v.
5024Coscan Florida, Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3 r d DCA 1992).
5038The Applicable Permit Criteria
50425 4 . In order for Greene and Hastings to meet the burden of
5056proof described above, they were required to demonstrate
5064compliance with the criteria included in Section 373.223,
5072Florid a Stat utes . This statutory provision establishes a three -
5084prong test requiring that a proposed use of water : (1) is a
5097reasonable - beneficial use of water; (2) will not interfere with
5108any presently existing legal use of water; and (3) is consistent
5119with the public interest. The Districts Conditions for
5127Issuance of Permits, which implement the three - prong test, are
5138contained in Rule 40C - 2.301 . T he Criteria for Evaluation of
5151Permits are found in Part II, Applicants Handbook, Consumptive
5160Uses of Water. The Applicants Handbook has been adopted by
5170reference in Rule 40C - 2.101(1).
51765 5 . Rule 40C - 2.301 (2) - (4) provides in pertinent part as
5191follows:
5192( 2) To obtain a consumptive use permit for a use
5203which will commence after the effective date of
5211implementati on, the applicant must establish that the
5219proposed use of water:
5223(a) Is a reasonable beneficial use; and
5230(b) Will not interfere with any presently
5237existing legal use of water; and
5243(c) Is consistent with the public interest.
5250(3) For purposes of subsection (2)(b) above,
5257presently existing legal use of water shall mean those
5266legal uses which exist at the time of receipt of the
5277application for the consumptive use permit.
5283(4) The following criteria must be met in order
5292for a use to be considered beneficial:
5299(a) The use must be in such quantity as is
5309necessary for economic and efficient
5314utilization.
5315(b) The use must be for a purpose that is
5325both reasonable and consistent with the
5331public interest.
5333(c) The source of the water must be capable
5342of re ducing the request ed amounts of
5350water.
5351(d) The environmental or economic harm
5357caused by the consumptive use must be
5364reduced to an acceptable amount.
5369(e) All available water conservation
5374measures must be implemented unless the
5380applicant de monstrates that
5384implementation is not economically,
5388environmentally or technologically
5391feasible. Satisfaction of this
5395criterion may be demonstrated by
5400implementation of an approved water
5405conservation plan as required in
5410S ection 12.0 . , Applicant's Handbook :
5417Consumptive Uses of Water.
5421(f) When reclaimed water is readily
5427available it must be used in place of
5435higher quality water sources unless the
5441applicant demonstrates that its use is
5447either not economically,
5450environmentally, or technologically
5453feasible .
5455(g) For all uses except food preparation
5462and direct human consumption, the
5467lowest acceptable quality water source,
5472including reclaimed water or surface
5477water (which includes stormwater), must
5482be utilized for each consumptive use.
5488To use a higher quali ty water source an
5497applicant must demonstrate that the use
5503of all lower quality water sources will
5510not be economically, environmentally or
5515technologically feasible. If the
5519applicant demonstrates that use of a
5525lower quality water source would result
5531in adv erse environmental impacts that
5537outweigh water savings, a higher
5542quality source may be utilized.
5547(h) The consumptive use shall not cause
5554significant saline water intrusion or further
5560aggravate currently existing saline water
5565intrusion problems.
5567(i) The consumptive use shall not cause or
5575contribute to flood damage.
5579(j) The water quality of the source of the water
5589shall not be seriously harmed by the
5596consumptive use.
5598(k) The consumptive use shall not cause or
5606contribute to a violation of state
5612water q uality standards in receiving
5618waters of the state as set forth in
5626Chapters 62 - 3, 62 - 4, 62 - 302, 62 - 520,
5639and 62 - 550, F.A.C., including any anti -
5648degradation provisions of Sections 62 -
56544.242(1)(a) and (b), 62 - 4.242(2) and
5661(3), and 62 - 302.300, F.A.C., and any
5669sp ecial standards for Outstanding
5674National Waters set forth in Section s
568162 - 4.242(2) and (3) , F.A.C . A valid
5690permit issued pursuant to Chapters 62 -
5697660 or 62 - 670, F.A.C., or Section 62 -
57074.240, F.A.C., or a permit issued
5713pursuant to Chapters 40C - 4, 40C - 40,
572240C - 42, or 40C - 44, F.A.C., which
5731authorizes the discharge associated
5735with the consumptive use shall
5740establish that t his criterion has been
5747met, provided the applicant is in
5753compliance with the water quality
5758conditions of that permit.
5762(l) The consumptive use must not cause
5769water levels or flows to fall below the
5777minimum limits set forth in Chapter
578340C - 8, F.A.C.
57875 6 . In addition to the foreg oing, Rule 40C - 2.301(5)(a)
5800sets forth the reasons for denial of a CUP application,
5810providing:
5811(5)(a) A proposed consu mptive use does not meet the
5821criteria for the issuance of a permit set forth in
5831subsection 40C - 2.301(2), F.A.C., if such proposed water
5840use will:
58421. Significantly induce saline water
5847encroachment; or
58492. Cause the water table or surface water
5857level to b e lowered so that stages or
5866vegetation will be adversely and
5871significantly affected on lands other
5876than those owned, leased, or otherwise
5882controlled by the applicant; or
58873. Cause the water table level or aquifer
5895potentiometric surface level to be
5900lowered so that significant and adverse
5906impacts will affect existing legal
5911users; or
59134. Require the use of water which pursuant
5921to Section 373.223(3), Florida Statutes,
5926and Rule 40 C - 2.301(6), F.A.C., the Board
5935has reserved from use by permit; or
59425. Cause the rate of flow of a surface
5951watercourse to be lowered below any
5957minimum flow which has been established
5963in Chapter 40C - 8, F.A.C.; or
59706. Cause the level of a water table
5978aquifer, the potentiometric surface
5982level of an aquifer, or the water level
5990of a surfa ce water to be lowered below a
6000minimum level which has been established
6006in Chapter 40C - 8, F.A.C.
6012These criteria are also found in A.H. Section 9.4.
6021The Proposed Use Is a Reason a ble - Beneficial Use
60325 7 . R easonable assurance has been provided that the
6043rea sonable - beneficial use criteria listed in Rule 40C -
60542.301(4) (c), ( e), (f), (h), (i), and (k) are met. These same
6067criteria are found in A.H. Sections 10.3(c), (e), (f), (h), (i)
6078and (k) .
60815 8 . B ottling water for human consumption is a highly
6093efficient use in that very little if any water devoted to the
6105use will be lost or wasted. Virtually all of the water
6116withdrawn will go into the product.
61225 9 . Also with regard to this criterion, the amount of
6134water requested for the use is appropriate for this type of u se ,
6147and Applicant has the ability to market the water in the
6158quantities allocated.
616060 . In addition to the letter of intent in the permit file
6173from a Jacksonville bottler stating its intent to purchase the
6183100,000 gpd allocated for the first year of the permit, Greene
6195and Hastings presented evidence establishing that the market for
6204this product is rapidly expanding, supporting the ability to use
6214the amounts of water allocated through Y ear 5 of the permit.
62266 1 . Should Greene and Hastings be unable to use t he full
6240499,000 gpd allocation of groundwater by the fifth year of the
6252permit, the District retai ns the ability, as part of the five -
6265year compliance reviews provided for by condition in the permit,
6275to review and modify the allocation, to adjust for any par t of
6288the allocation that is unused.
62936 2 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
6303the proposed us e complies with Rule 40C - 2.301( 4)(a) and A.H.
6316Section 10.3(a).
63186 3 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that t he
6330proposed use of water is for a purpose that is both reasonable
6342and consistent with the public interest, Greene and Hastings
6351presented evidence that bottling of water from the well on the
6362Black Sink Mine property is a legitimate, economically
6370beneficial commercial enterprise. In a ddition, Greene and
6378Hastings presented evidence establishing that there will be no
6387adverse economic o r environmental impacts resulting from the
6396proposed use.
63986 4 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
6408the proposed use compli es with Rule 40 C - 2.301(4) ( b) and A.H.
6423Section 10.3(b).
64256 5 . In order to establish that the economic or
6436environmental harm, if any, caused by the proposed use will be
6447reduced to an acceptable amount, Greene and Hastings presented
6456expert testimony regarding groundwater m odeling done in support
6465of the application. The results of the modeling showed that the
6476predicted drawdown in the Floridan and surficial aquifers
6484expected to be caused by the withdrawal of 499,000 gpd of
6496groundwater is so small that it will have no effect on any other
6509users of water in the region.
65156 6 . Further, the evidence presented by Greene and Hastings
6526established that, based on the results of the groundwater
6535modeling combined with an expert field evaluation of the
6544landscape surrounding the site of t he withdrawals, there will be
6555no harm to any environmental features on or in the vicinity of
6567the mine site.
65706 7 . The e conomic impacts resulting from the proposed use
6582will be positive.
65856 8 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
6595the propo sed use complies with Rule 40C - 2.301(4)(d), and A.H.
6607Section 10.3(d) .
66106 9 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
6621proposed use of groundwater represents use of the lowest quality
6631source of water suitable for the use, Greene and Hastings
6641prese nted evidence that the use is for human consumption.
6651Because the use is for human consumption, pursuant to the terms
6662of Rule 40C - 2.302(4)(g), an applicant is relieved of any
6673requirement to demonstrate that a lower quality source (lower
6682quality than ground water) is not feasible for the proposed use.
669370 . In addition, the evidence presented by Greene and
6703Hastings demonst rated that the alternate, lower - quality source
6713advocated by the County, surface water from the mine pit, could
6724not be substituted for groun dwater because the surface water
6734would require treatment to make it suitable for consumption.
6743Greene and Hastings cannot market water from the property to the
6754bottlers who have expressed intentions to purchase water from
6763them if the water has been treated prior to providing it to the
6776bottlers. Therefore, in addition to increasing the cost of
6785production , assuming the water from the mine pit could be
6795treated to levels appropriate for human consumption, Greene and
6804Hastings would be left with a product that c ould not be sold.
68177 1 . In addition to the foregoing, because of the close
6829connection between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan
6837aquifer at the site, withdrawing wate r from the open mine pit
6849would reduce water levels in the Florida aquifer. Thus, ther e
6860would be little or no reduction in drawdown impacts in the
6871Floridan aquifer if the withdrawals were made from the mine pit
6882instead of from the Floridan aquifer.
68887 2 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
6898the proposed use complies with R ule 40C - 2.301(4)(g) and A.H.
6910Section 10.3( g) .
69147 3 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
6925source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously
6937harmed by the use, Greene and Hastings presented the previously -
6948mentioned modeling inform ation demonstrating that the drawdown
6956in the Floridan aquifers is not predicted to exceed 0.03 feet,
6967approximately one - third of an inch. This almost immeasurable
6977drawdown, according to the uncontraverted expert testimony
6984presented by Greene and Hastings , will have no adverse impact on
6995the Floridan aquifer.
69987 4 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
7008the pro posed use complies with Rule 40C - 2.301(4)(j) and A.H.
7020Section 10.3(j).
70227 5 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
7033propos ed use will not cause a minimum flow for a surface
7045watercourse or a minimum level for an aquifer or a surface water
7057body, established pursuant to Chapter 40 C - 8, Florida
7067Admin istrative Code , to fall below the established minimum flow
7077or level, Greene and Ha stings presented evidence that , due to
7088the inconsequential drawdown predicted for the proposed
7095withdrawals and due to the distance between the site of the
7106withdrawals and the few water bodies where established minimum
7115flows or levels exist, there will be n o such impact.
71267 6 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
7136the proposed use complies with Rule 40C - 2.301(l).
7145Interference With Existing Legal Users
71507 7 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
7161proposed use will not interfere wi th any existing legal use of
7173water existing at the time of submission of its application,
7183Greene and Hastings presented the results of the modeling effort
7193showing a predicted drawdown of 0.03 feet or less as a
7204consequence of the use. This was supported by expert testimony
7214that because of the small drawdown expected to be caused by the
7226use there will be no impact on any existing legal users.
72377 8 . Rule 40C - 2.301(3) makes it abundantly clear that , for
7250purposes of application of the criterion related to
7258inter ference, existing legal users means only legal uses
7267existing at the time the application is submitted. Thus,
7276speculative, potential future uses, not presently in existence,
7284and not permitted by the District are not considered existing
7294legal uses for pur poses of this test.
73027 9 . Greene and Hastings provided reasonable assurance that
7312the proposed use complies with Rule 40C - 2.301(2)(b).
7321Consistency with the Public Interest
732680. Pursuant to A.H. Section 9.3, public interest means:
7335... those rights and claims on behalf of
7343people in general. In determining the
7349public interest in consumptive use
7354permitting decisions, the Board will
7359consider whether an existing or proposed use
7366is beneficial or detrimental to the overall
7373collective well - being of the people or to
7382the water resources of the area, the
7389District and the State.
739381 . In order to provide reasonable assurance that the
7403proposed use of water is consistent with the public interest,
7413Greene and Hastings presented testimony that the water will be
7423used for a pr oductive, beneficial economic activity and that
7433there will no adverse impacts to the source of the water, to
7445environmental resources , or to any adjoining landowners. These
7453are the considerations generally encompassed and addressed by
7461the Districts permit ting criteria. With regard to these
7470criteria , there was no evidence offered showing any detrimental
7479impacts resulting from the proposed use of water.
74878 2 . The County argues that the District should have
7498evaluated and considered whether the activity assoc iated with
7507the proposed use complies with the Countys comprehensive plan
7516or zoning code , o r that Greene and Hastings should be required
7528to obtain such approvals or authorizations from the County
7537before being permitted to proceed with the CUP process.
75468 3 . The District has not adopted , either directly or by
7558reference, any of the Countys land use requirement s as criteria
7569for which an applicant must provide reasonable assurance in
7578order to be granted a CUP. N either has the District adopted
7590rule provisions making any other related approvals , such as
7599comprehensive plan amendments , a pre - requisite for applying for
7609a CUP. The District, in fact, is prohibited from requiring
7619compliance with local government regulations which have not
7627specifically been adopted as the part of the Districts rule
7637criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino &
7648Sons, Inc. , 429 So. 2d. 67 (Fla. 3 r d DCA 1983); Save the St.
7663Johns River v. St. Johns River Water Management District ,
7672623 So . 2d. 1193 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1993). The Countys position on
7686this point, as previously determined in the Order granting
7695Greene and Hastings s Motion in Limine, is without merit.
77058 4 . The Countys argument , that the District should
7715consider the amount of money a permittee stands to make fro m a
7728use of water as a component of the public interest test, is
7740equally without merit. Nowhere in the Districts rule criteria
7749is the amount of economic return a permittee receives from water
7760use made a test or factor in determining whether an applicant
7771s hould be granted a permit or not. Further, even if this factor
7784could be considered by the District, there is no guidance in the
7796Districts permitting criteria that would instruct the District
7804or applicants regarding how much a permittee may be allowed to
7815earn before the use ceases to be consistent with the public
7826interest. The Countys position on this point is without merit.
78368 5 . The County also argues that the District should
7847consider that , within the Countys 50 - year planning horizon,
7857there will be limits on the availability of groundwater for all
7868water uses in the County, and should deny the application
7878because the alternative water sources will be required for
7887County water uses at some point in the future. In essence , the
7899County seeks to have a vi able source of water ruled off - limits
7913to this particular user, in favor of unpermitted and as - yet
7925unidentified alternative groundwater uses.
79298 6 . If a source of water is available for use, and a
7943beneficial use can be made of water from the source, and if a
7956proposed use of the source meets all of the Districts criteria
7967for such use, the District has no basis on which to deny that
7980applicants request for a permit to use water from the source.
79918 7 . Finally, with regard to consistency with the public
8002intere st, the County suggests that the existence of restrictions
8012on the frequency of landscape irrigation is a factor that should
8023have been considered by the District in evaluating the
8032application. In fact , the restrictions enacted by the District
8041for all water users , in all counties in the District, are
8052intended to maximize efficiency for this particular use
8060(landscape irrigation) . Commercial/industrial uses also have
8067efficiency standards and the use proposed by Greene and Hastings
8077is highly efficient. This a rgument has no merit.
8086Reasons for Recommendation of Denial Not Established
809388. None of the reasons for recommendation of denial of a
8104CUP application list ed in Rule 40C - 2.301(5)(a) or A.H. Sec tion
81179.4 were established by the evidence offered at the heari ng. To
8129the contrary, all applicable criteria have been met by Greene
8139and Hastings .
8142Adequacy of the Notices Provided
81478 9 . The County contends that the notice of receipt of
8159application and the notice of intended action on the application
8169were inadequate b ecause they described the location of the
8179activity by section, township , and range.
818590 . Section 373.229(1) , Florida Statutes , provides that
8193notices for CUPs shall contain, among other things: 1) the place
8204of use; and 2) the location of the use. Nothing in the statute
8217prescribes that such notices must be given by address or
8227anything more specific than section, township , and range.
823591 . The County does not suggest, nor did it present
8246evidence suggesting that the notices were inaccurate or
8254misleading. The District complied with the requirements of the
8263statu t e, in that the notice provides a location for the use.
8276See Ray, et al. v. St. Johns River Water Management District et
8288al. , DOAH Case Nos. 97 - 0803 and 97 - 0804, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS
8303121, (DOAH July 14, 1 997, SJRWMD Aug. 13, 1997) .
831492 . T he notices did not prevent the County from presenting
8326its position or asserting its rights during the permitting
8335process .
8337RECOMMENDATION
8338Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
8347of Law, it is
8351RECOMMENDE D that the District enter an order granting CUP
8361No. 97106 to Greene and Hastings with the conditions recommended
8371in the Districts Technical Staff Report.
8377DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in
8387Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
8391S
8392J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
8395Administrative Law Judge
8398Division of Administrative Hearings
8402The DeSoto Building
84051230 Apalachee Parkway
8408Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
8413(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
8421Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
8427www.doah.state.fl .us
8429Filed with the Clerk of the
8435Division of Administrative Hearings
8439this 9th of January, 2007.
8444ENDNOTE
84451 / Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to
8455the 2006 codification of the Florida Statutes, and all rule
8465references are to the current codification of the Florida
8474Administrative Code. References to the Applicants Handbook,
8481Consumptive Uses of Water, will use the abbreviation "A.H."
8490COPIES FURNISHED :
8493Kirby Green, Executive Director
8497St. Johns R iver Water Management
8503District
85044049 Reid Street
8507Palatka, Florida 32177 - 2529
8512Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire
8516Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
8521245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150
8526Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 4924
8531Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire
8535Marion County 's Attorney's Office
8540601 Southeast 25th Avenue
8544Ocala, Florida 34471 - 2690
8549Vance W. Kidder, Esquire
8553St. Johns River Water Management
8558District
85594049 Reid Street
8562Palatka, Florida 32177 - 2529
8567NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
8573All parties have th e right to submit written exceptions within
858415 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
8595to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
8606will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 03/26/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marion County`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/09/2007
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2006
- Proceedings: Respondents C. Ray Green, III and Angus S. Hastings` Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/21/2006
- Proceedings: (Respondent`s) Proposed Recommended Order and Memorandum of Law filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/14/2006
- Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders to be filed by November 22, 2006).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2006
- Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 10/24/2006
- Proceedings: Final Hearing Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I and II) filed.
- Date: 10/04/2006
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/03/2006
- Proceedings: Respondents Greene and Hastings` Motion to Exclude Expert Witness filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/13/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for September 21, 2006; 9:00 a.m.).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/07/2006
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/30/2006
- Proceedings: Respondent Angus S. Hastings` Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner, Marion County`s First Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/30/2006
- Proceedings: Respondent C. Ray Greene, III`s Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner, Marion County`s First Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/30/2006
- Proceedings: Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District`s, Notice of Service of Answers to Marion County`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/16/2006
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 4 through 6, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Ocala, FL; amended as to location).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/11/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 4 through 6, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Ocala, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/02/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for August 10, 2006; 2:00 p.m.).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2006
- Proceedings: Respondents Greene and Hastings` Notice of Service of First Interrogatories to Marion County, Florida filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2006
- Proceedings: Respondents Greene and Hastings` Notice of Service of First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Marion County, Florida filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/27/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories (St. Johns River Water Management District) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/27/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories (A. Hastings) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/27/2006
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories (C. Greene) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/21/2006
- Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (response to the Intitial Order to be filed by July 28, 2006).
Case Information
- Judge:
- J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
- Date Filed:
- 07/14/2006
- Date Assignment:
- 07/14/2006
- Last Docket Entry:
- 04/13/2009
- Location:
- Ocala, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire
Address of Record -
Vance W. Kidder, Esquire
Address of Record -
Thomas D MacNamara, Esquire
Address of Record -
Kathryn L Mennella, General Counsel
Address of Record