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.


View Dockets  
Summary: Applicant proved the criteria for a Consumptive Use Permit for bottled water had been met. The local comprehensive plan and zoning are not relevant.

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 Applicant’s 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 rict’s 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 County’s 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 County’s Comprehensive Plan

523or the County’s 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 County’s 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 Applicant’s 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

1828“the 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 bottler’s 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 County’s planning estimates

2964includes anticipated growth in the commercial/industrial

2970cat egory of uses. The County’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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

3778County’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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, Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive

5160Uses of Water. The Applicant’s 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,

5257“presently 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 District’s 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 County’s 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 County’s 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 District’s 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 County’s position on

7686this point, as previously determined in the Order granting

7695Greene and Hastings ’s Motion in Limine, is without merit.

77058 4 . The County’s 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 District’s 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

7796District’s 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 County’s position on this point is without merit.

78368 5 . The County also argues that the District should

7847consider that , within the County’s 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 District’s criteria

7967for such use, the District has no basis on which to deny that

7980applicant’s 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 District’s 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 Applicant’s 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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2009
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2009
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2009
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2009
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2007
Proceedings: Order Declining Referral to Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2007
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, DOAH Case No. 5D7-1239 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner Marion County`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2007
Proceedings: Amended Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2007
Proceedings: Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2007
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/13/2007
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held October 4, 2006). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2006
Proceedings: Response to Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2006
Proceedings: Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2006
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order.
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: 09/29/2006
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2006
Proceedings: Order on Motion in Limine and Motion to Compel.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Motion in Limine 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: Respondents Greene and Hastings` Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2006
Proceedings: Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2006
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
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: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
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: 07/27/2006
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2006
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (response to the Intitial Order to be filed by July 28, 2006).
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2006
Proceedings: Motion for Additional Time to Respond to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Transcription filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: (Proposed) Mediation Agreement filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Written Notice of Intended District Decision on Permit Application 97106 filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by W. Flowers).
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Petition for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Consumptive Use Technical Staff Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Referral filed.

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

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):