14-001421RP Paul Still vs. Suwannee River Water Management District And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, September 11, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: It is concluded that proposed rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, and the Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in rule 62.-42.300(1)(d) are valid, but proposed rules 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid because they are vague.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8PAUL STILL,

10Petitioner,

11vs. Case No. 14 - 1420RU

17SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

21DISTRICT,

22Respondent,

23and

24NORTH FLORIDA UTILITY

27COORDINATING GROUP; CLAY COUNTY

31UTILITY AUTHORITY; JEA; ST.

35JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

39DISTRICT; ALACHUA COUNTY;

42GILCHRIST COUNTY; SUWANNEE

45COUNTY; BOARD OF COUNTY

49COMMISSIONERS OF BRADFORD

52COUNTY , AND COLUMBIA COUNTY,

56Intervenors.

57_______________________________/

58PAUL STILL,

60Petitioner,

61vs. Case No. 14 - 142 1 R P

70SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

74DISTRICT,

75Respondent,

76and

77NORTH FLORIDA UTILITY

80COORDINATING GROUP; CLAY COUNTY

84UTILITY AUTHORITY; JEA; ST.

88JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

92DISTRICT; ALACHUA COUNTY;

95GILCHRIST COUNTY; SUWANNEE

98COUNTY; BOARD OF COUNTY

102COMMISSIONERS OF BRADFORD

105COUNTY ; AND COLUMBIA COUNTY,

109Intervenors.

110_______________________________/

111PAUL STILL,

113Petitioner,

114vs. Case No. 14 - 1443R P

121SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

125DISTRICT,

126Respondent,

127and

128NORTH FLORIDA UTILITY

131COORDINAT ING GROUPS; CLAY COUNTY

136UTILITY AUTHORITY; JEA; ST.

140JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

144DISTRICT; ALACHUA COUNTY;

147GILCHRIST COUNTY; SUWANNEE

150COUNTY; BOARD OF C OUNTY

155COMMISSIONERS OF BRADFORD

158COUNTY ; AND COLUMBIA COUNTY,

162Intervenors.

163________________________ _______/

165FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

168INC., AND ICHETUCKNEE ALLIANCE,

172INC.,

173Petitioner s ,

175vs. Case No. 14 - 1644RP

181DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

184PROTECTION,

185Respondent,

186and

187NORTH FLORIDA UTILITY

190COORDINATING GROUPS; CLAY COUNTY

194UTILITY AUTHORITY; JE A; ST.

199JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

203DISTRICT; SUWANNEE RIVER WATER

207MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; ALACHUA

210COUNTY; GILCHRIST COUNTY;

213SUWANNEE COUNTY; BOARD OF COUNTY

218COMISSIONERS OF BRADFORD COUNTY ;

222AND COLUMBIA COUNTY ,

225Intervenors.

226____________________________ ___/

228FINAL ORDER

230The final hearing in these consolidated cases was held on

240May 28 - 30 and June 12 - 13, 2014, in Tallahassee, Florida , before

254Bram D.E. Canter, Administrative Law Judge o f the Division of

265Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

268APPEARANCES

269For Petitioner Paul Still:

273Paul Edward Still, pro se

27814167 Southwest 101st Avenue

282Starke, Florida 32091

285For Petitioners Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. , and

292Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc.:

295David G. Guest, Esquire

299Monica K. Reimer, Esquire

303Alisa A. Coe, Esquire

307Bradley Marshall, Esquire

310Earthjustice

311111 South Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

318Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1451

323For Respondent/Intervenor Department of Environmental

328Protection:

329Douglas Beason, Esquire

332Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

335Matthew Z. Leopold, Esquire

339Benjamin Melnick, Esquire

342Kristine P. Jone s, Esquire

347Department of Environmental Protection

351Mail Station 35

3543900 Commonwealth B oulevard

358Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

363For Respondent/Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management

369District:

370George T. Reeves, Esquire

374Davis, Schnitker, Reeves and Bro wning, P.A.

381Post Office Drawer 652

385Madison, Florida 32341

388Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire

392Frederick T. Reeves, P.A.

3965709 Tidalwave Drive

399New Port Richey, Florida 34562

404For Intervenors NFUCG, CCUA, and JEA:

410Edward P. de la Parte, Esquire

416Nicolas Q. Porter , Esquire

420de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A.

426101 East Kennedy B oulevard , Suite 2000

433Tampa, Florida 33601

436For Intervenor St. Johns River Water Management District:

444Vance W. Kidder, Esquire

448St. Johns River Water Management District

4544049 Reid Street

457Palatka, Flor ida 32177

461For Intervenor Alachua County:

465Sylvia E. Torres, Esquire

469Alachua County AttorneyÓs Office

473Post Office Box 5547

477Gainesville, Florida 32627

480Jennifer Springfield, Esquire

483Springfield Law, P.A.

486806 Northwest 16th Avenue, Suite B

492Gainesville, Flor ida 32601

496For Intervenor Board of County Commissioners of Bradford

504County:

505William E. Sexton, Esquire

509Bradford County Attorney

512945 North Temple Avenue

516Starke, Florida 32091

519For Intervenor Columbia County:

523Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire

527Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A.

532Post Office Drawer 3007

536St. Augustine, Florida 32085 - 3007

542Marlin L. Feagle, Esquire

546Columbia County Attorney

549Post Office Box 1653

553Lake City, Florida 32056 - 1653

559For Intervenor Gilchrist County:

563David M. Lang, Jr., Esquire

568Gilchrist County Attorney

571Post Office Box 51

575Trenton, Florida 32693

578For Intervenor Suwannee County:

582James W. Prevatt, Jr., Esq uire

588Suwannee County Attorney

591Prevatt Law Firm, P.L.

595123 East Howard Street

599Live Oak, Florida 32064

603STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

607The issues to be determined in this case are whether

617proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62 - 42.100, 62 - 42.200,

62862 - 42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (Ðthe

638Proposed RulesÑ) are in valid exercises of delegated legislative

647authority; whether the Depart ment of Environmental Protection

655(ÐDEPÑ) complied with statutory requirements regarding

661preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs

669(ÐSERCÑ) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the

680Governing Board of the Suwan n ee River Water Ma nagement District

692(ÐSRWMDÑ) of a document entitled ÐRecovery S trategy : Lower

702Santa Fe River BasinÑ (ÐRecovery StrategyÑ) is invalid because

711it required rulemaking.

714PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

716On March 7, 2014, DEP published a Notice of Proposed Rule

727in the Flor ida Administrative Register to adopt the Proposed

737Rules, which would establish minimum flows for the Lower Santa

747Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and their associated priority springs

756(Ðthe MFL water bodiesÑ), and create supplemental regulatory

764criteria for the r eview of applications for consumptive use

774permits in the area. The notice also informed the public that a

786SERC had been prepared regarding the Proposed Rules and was

796available for review.

799On March 11, 2014, SRWMD approve d the R ecovery S trategy

811that had be en developed for the MFL water bodies. On March 24,

8242014, Paul Still filed a petition to challenge SRWMDÓs action in

835approving the R ecovery Strategy, claiming that it constituted an

845unpromulgated rule. The petition was assigned DOAH Case No.

85414 - 1420RU.

857Also on March 24, 2014, Paul Still filed a petition to

868challenge the DepartmentÓs SERC. This second petition was

876assigned DOAH Case No. 14 - 1421RP.

883On March 27, 2014, Paul Still filed a petition to challenge

894the Proposed Rules. This third petition was ass igned DOAH Case

905No. 14 - 1443RP.

909On April 8, 2014, DEP published a Notice of

918Change/Withdrawal to explain that it had made changes to the

928Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule

93662 - 42.300. This notice also informed the public that a re vised

949SERC was available for review.

954On April 11, 2014, Florida Wildlife Federation , Inc.

962(ÐFWFÑ) , filed a petition to challenge the Proposed Rules. The

972petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 14 - 1644RP.

981Petitioner Still Ós petitions in DOAH Case Nos. 14 - 1421R P

993and 14 - 1443RP were dismissed on motion from Respondents, but he

1005was granted leave to amend. FWF was also granted leave to amend

1017its petition, including leave to add Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc.

1026(Ðthe AllianceÑ) , as a party. In an Order dated May 21, 2014 ,

1038the motion to add the Alliance was deemed to be the AllianceÓs

1050timely rule challenge petition.

1054The four cases were consolidated for hearing, but they are

1064distinct. All Petitioners challenged the Proposed Rules, but

1072only Petitioner Still challenged the p roposed minimum flows in

1082the Proposed Rules . Only Petitioner Still challenged the SERC

1092and SRWMD Ós approval of the Recovery Strategy.

1100Petitions to intervene in support of the Proposed Rules

1109were filed by St . Johns River Water Management District

1119(ÐSJRWMDÑ ), North Florida Utility Coordinating Group (ÐNFUCGÑ),

1127Clay County Utility Authority (ÐCCUAÑ), JEA, Alachua County,

1135Bradford County, Columbia County, Gilchrist County, and Suwannee

1143County, all of which were granted.

1149Before the final hearing, Intervenors NF UCG, CCUA, and JEA

1159(referred to collectively as ÐJEAÑ) moved for Summary Final

1168Order dismissing the petitions of FWF and the Alliance for

1178lacking associational standing. On the first day of the

1187hearing, the motion was granted with respect to FWF, but deni ed

1199with respect to the Alliance.

1204At the final hearing, Petitioner Still testified on his own

1214behalf and presented the testimony of Russell Kiger , a

1223hydrologist employed by SRWMD ; Warren Zwanka, a senior

1231hydrologist for SRWMD; Janet Llewellyn, Administrator of DEPÓs

1239Office of Water Policy, who was accepted as an expert witness in

1251the fields of aquatic ecology, aquatic and wetland systems,

1260water quality protection and management, and regional water

1268supply planning; Carlos Herd, the Director of SRWMDÓs Water

1277Supply Division; John Good, Chief Professional Engineer for

1285SRWMD who was accepted as an expert in the fields of civil

1297engineering, water resource engineering, and the development of

1305minimum flows and levels; Clay Coarsey, a Professional Engineer

1314employed b y SRWMD; and Jack Grubbs, a hydrologist employed by

1325SRWMD. Still Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2A, 3, 3A, 13A, and 15 were

1337admitted into the record.

1341The Alliance presented the testimony of John Jopling,

1349President of the Alliance; Ken Weber, a private consultant who

1359wa s accepted as an expert in hydrogeology; Russell Kiger ; and

1370Janet Llewellyn. The testimony of Patrick Tara was presented

1379through the admission into evidence of the transcript of his

1389deposition.

1390Respondents placed on the record a stipulation that a

1399substantial number of the AllianceÓs members make regular use of

1409the MFL waterbodies for recreation and other relevant purposes.

1418However, to accommodate 17 members who had traveled to

1427Tallahassee to provide this kind of testimony for standing

1436purposes, the Admin istrative Law Judge placed them under oath

1446and allowed them an opportunity to make summary statements

1455regarding their uses of the MFL waterbodies. They were

1464Lucinda Marritt, Bob Palmer, Lynn Polk, Yolanda Jopling,

1472Loye Barnard, Jill Lingard, Dave Morris, Robert Baker,

1480James Tatum, Marrillee Malwitz - Jipson, Charles Maxwell,

1488Sue Karcher, Laura Dailey, Leslie Gamble, John Moran,

1496Jim Stevenson, and Lars Anderson.

1501Alliance Exhibits 2 - 3, 49, 51, 60A, 62, 163, 167, 172C,

1513175, 191A, 195, and 196 were admitted into the record.

1523FWF made a proffer of FWF Ex. 60A, which shows FWF

1534membership by county, and a n oral proffer regarding the witness

1545testimony it was prepared to present for standing purposes.

1554DEP presented the testimony of Janet Llewellyn. DEP

1562Exhibits 1.9 an d 3.7 were admitted into the record.

1572SRWMD presented the testimony of Carlos Herd; John Good;

1581Russell Kiger; and Warren Zwanka. SRWMD Exhibits 1 - 3 were

1592admitted into the record.

1596JEA presented the testimony of Ken Weber. JEA Exhibits 26,

160636, 37, and 39 we re admitted into the record.

1616The Proposed Rules, SERC, and related rulemaking documents

1624were officially recognized by the Administrative Law Judge.

1632The nine - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

1643with DOAH. The parties filed proposed final order s that were

1654considered by the Administrative Law Judge in the preparation of

1664this Final Order.

1667FINDINGS OF FACT

1670A. The Parties

16731. The Alliance is a Florida not - for - profit corporation

1685with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First

1695Street, Ga inesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the

1705restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations

1712of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its

1721associated springs.

17232. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen

1731members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they

1741regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority

1750springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other

1757purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the

1766total membership of the Alliance.

17713. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres

1782of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for

1793timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use

1803permit. H e has used the Lower Santa Fe River and assoc iated

1816springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the

1826river and springs for this purpose.

18324. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not - for - profit corporation

1844with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive,

1854Tallahassee, Florida. The miss ion of FWF includes the

1863preservation, management, and improvement of FloridaÓs water

1870resources and wildlife habitat.

18745. In the partiesÓ Pre - Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified

1884Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational

1893standing. It a lso listed Ðstanding witnesses as needed,Ñ but

1904did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he

1916did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies.

19286. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made a n oral

1941proffer that it was prep ared to call Ð10 members who are using

1954the water bodies.Ñ Later, FWF stated that some members were

1964unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that

197410 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing

1987or testifying by video.

19917. F WF also proffered a membership list, showing the

2001number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of

201411,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL

2027water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwa n nee,

2036and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is

2049not a substantial number of FWFÓs 11,788 total members, nor is

2061it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the

2073vicinity of the MFL waterbodies.

20788. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties

2089under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and

2098duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water

2108management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface

2116watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (ÐMFLsÑ) a nd

2125recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved.

21339. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water

2140management district with powers and duties under chapter 373,

2149including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL

2158waterbodies are located within SRWMD.

21631 0. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district

2172adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the

2183planning area created for the MFL waterbodies.

219011. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization

2198representing interests of public wat er supply utilities in North

2208Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the

2219Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of

2229NFUCG.

223012. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee

2237County, Bradford County, and Colum bia County are political

2246subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL

2256water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and

2267protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government

2278comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163,

2284Florida Statutes .

2287B. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies

229313 . The water management districts and the DEP are

2303required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses.

2312£ 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are Ðthe limit at which

2323further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water

2332resources or ecology of the area.Ñ £ 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

234214 . If the existing flow in a water body is below its

2355established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to

2365develop a Ðreco very strategyÑ designed to Ð [ a ] chieve recovery to

2379the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.Ñ

2389§ 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat.

239315 . MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be

2403included in a water management districtÓs regional water supply

2412plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management

2421districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions

2430where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate

2440to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain

2452wate r resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla.

2462Stat.

246316 . SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It

2475is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in

2488late 2015.

2490C. The MFL Water Bodies

24951 7 . The Lower Santa Fe River r uns for approximately 30

2508miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the

2520Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by

2530groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including

2538the baseflow provided by several major springs . The Lower Santa

2549Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River

2558(below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida

2568Water, a designation conferred on waters Ðwith exceptional

2576recreational or ecological significance.Ñ See Fla. Admin. C ode

2585R . 62 - 302.700(3).

25901 8 . The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head

2603Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is

2615derived almost entirely from springflow.

262019 . The ecological, recreational, and economic value s of

2630the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both

2640rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of

2651the S tate P ark S ystem.

26582 0 . SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to

2670determine whether water demands could be met for th e 2010 - 2030

2683planning period without adversely affecting natural resources.

2690The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate

2700groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and

2709the flows in springs and rivers.

27152 1 . The 2010 assessme nt concluded that groundwater levels

2726of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern

2736portions of the District were in decline. The DistrictÓs

2745analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends.

2754It was concluded that existing wate r sources would not be able

2766to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a

2777result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the

2786Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning

2795region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows f or these water

2807bodies.

28082 2 . Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent

2817SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies 1/ , DEP, SRWMD, and

2828SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work

2838together on water supply issues and the developme nt of a joint

2850regional groundwater model.

2853D. Development of the Minimum Flows

28592 3 . The procedural difficulties faced in establishing

2868minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management

2878districts eventually lead to the LegislatureÓs creation of

2886section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt

2895relevant rules which can be applied by the water management

2905districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June

29152013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL

2926waterbodies pursuant to the new law.

29322 4 . A gage 2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White,

2947and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for

2960establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum

2968flows were determined by first establishing a hydr ologic

2977baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a

2987departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to

2997the water resources and ecology of the area.

30052 5 . The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration

3016curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the

3028changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic,

3038and other factors affecting rainfall.

30432 6 . Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD

3053evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the

3063minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with

3073section 37 3.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and

3084implemented.

3085E. The Recovery Strategy

30892 7 . A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return

3102to adopted MFLs and will gene rally include plans for developing

3113new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency

3121measures. See § 373 .0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the

3132water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory

3141measures that are used in the revi ew of consumptive use permits

3153as part of a recovery strategy. See , e.g. , Fla. Admin. C ode R .

316740D - 80.074.

31702 8 . That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies.

3182The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation,

3189water supply development, a nd water resource development

3197components. Th ese components comprise the non - regulatory

3206portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery

3216Strategy, entitled ÐSupplemental Regulatory Measures,Ñ is the

3224regulatory portion and is incorporated by r eference in proposed

3234rule 62 - 42.300(1)(d).

323829 . The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two

3249phases and the objectives of each phase are described in

3259Table 4 - 1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption

3271of supplemental regulatory measures, w ork with user groups to

3281implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved

3289regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation

3296of water supply projects.

33003 0 . In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use

3314the new regional model to develop long - term regulatory measures

3325to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In

3335addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement

3343additional water resource and supply projects.

3349F. The Proposed Rules

33533 1 . The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a

3365new chapter 62 - 42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62 -

337842.100 and 62 - 42.200 set forth the scope and definitions:

338962 - 42.100 Scope

3393(1) The purpose of this chapter is to set

3402forth Department - adopted minimum flows and

3409levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions

3415of any required recovery or prevention

3421strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4),

3427F.S.

3428(2) The Department recognizes that recovery

3434and prevention strategies may contain both

3440regulatory and non - regulatory p rovisions.

3447The non - regulatory provisions are not

3454included in this rule, and will be included

3462in the applicable regional water supply

3468plans approved by the appropriate districts

3474pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section

3480373.709, F.S.

3482[Rulemaking authorit y and law implemented

3488omitted.]

348962 - 42.200 Definitions

3493When used in this chapter, the following

3500words shall have the indicated meanings

3506unless the rule indicates otherwise:

3511(1) Flow Duration Curve means a plot of

3519magnitude of flow versus percent of tim e the

3528magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded.

3535(2) Flow Duration Frequency means the

3541percentage of time that a given flow is

3549equaled or exceeded.

3552[Rulemaking authority and law implemented

3557omitted.]

35583 2 . Rule 62 - 42.300 is where the proposed minimum flow s are

3573set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are

3585established in rule 62 - 42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the

3596Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62 - 42.300(1)(b); and

3606the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in

3616rule 62 - 42.300(1)(c).

36203 3 . The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee

3632Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second

3643(ÐcfsÑ) at various points on a flow duration curve.

36523 4 . The minimum flows for ten named springs associated

3663with the S anta Fe River and six named springs associated with

3675the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a Ðpercent reduction from

3686the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flowÑ

3697at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring

3707flow to rive r flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal

3720flow data for the springs.

37253 5 . Rule 62 - 42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference

3735ÐSupplemental Regulatory Measures,Ñ which is Section

37426.0 of the Recovery Strategy.

37473 6 . Rule 62 - 42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coord ination

3760with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows

3769after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional

3778Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development.

3786The rule also states that DEP will ÐstrikeÑ rules

379562 - 42.300( 1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than

3808three years after completion of the final peer review report

3818regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019,

3828whichever date is earlier.

38323 7 . The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by

3841reference in rule 62 - 42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide

3851additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit

3859applications during Phase I . These measures would be applied to

3870water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply

3879Planning Area.

38813 8 . For the purposes of the issues raised in these

3893consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories

3902of permit applications and how they would be treated under the

3913Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I : (1) A new permit

3924application that s hows a Ðpotential impactÑ to the MFL water

3935bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An

3945application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase

3956the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no

3968matter what impact it is hav ing on the MFL water bodies;

3980however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal

3990would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to

4002renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would

4013have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL

4024water bodies associated only with the increase . This category

4034of permits is limited to a five - year renewal unless the existing

4047impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a) - (d) of the

4060Recovery Strategy.

406239 . Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do

4072not expire during Phase I a re considered consistent with the

4083Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the

4093term of their permits.

40974 0 . Many permits are issued for a 20 - year period, so Phase

4112I would not capt ure all existing permits because they would not

4124all expire during Phase I . 3 / DEP stated that existing permits

4137may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt

4148for Phase II.

41514 1 . Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures

4161states th at permittees are not responsible for impacts to the

4172MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more

4184than the permitteeÓs Ðproportionate share of impacts.Ñ The

4192record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water

4201users on the MFL wa ter bodies is small.

42104 2 . Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use

4220in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a

4231condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab

4239(MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMDÓs MIL program is to improve

4250the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost -

4259sharing in this program.

4263G. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by

4273Rule

42744 3 . Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62 - 42.100(1)

4285and (2) enlarge, modify, or contrav ene sections 373.042(4) and

4295373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a

4306recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a

4317recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent

4325with the law for DEP t o adopt only t he regulatory portion of the

4340Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non -

4351regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water

4360supply plan .

43634 4 . It has been the practice of the water management

4375districts to adopt by rule only the regula tory portion of a

4387recovery strategy and to implement the non - regulatory portion as

4398a component of their regional water supply plans.

44064 5 . This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in

4419the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not

4431requi red to adopt the entire R ecovery Strategy by rule.

4442H. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule

44524 6 . Petitioner Still challenged SRWMDÓs approval of the

4462Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of

4470section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence

4478in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains

4488statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not

4499adopted as rules.

4502I. Whether the Non - Regulatory Portion of the Recovery

4512Strategy Will Prevent Re covery

45174 7 . The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non -

4531regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by

4541SRWMD , primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the

4552MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that m ust

4564be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows.

45744 8 . The re is unrefuted record evidence indicating that

4585SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the

4596last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy

4605probably under es timate s the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe

4618and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed t o achieve

4630the minimum flows . 4 / However, as explained in the Conclusions of

4643Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non - regulatory portion of

4654the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding .

466149 . The Recovery Strategy, including the non - regulatory

4671portion approved by SRWMD , is in Phase I . SRWMD can revise the

4684Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with

4697the improved analysis made possible with th e new regional model.

4708As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non - regulatory

4719portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I .

4730J. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best

4740Information Available

47425 0 . Petitioner Still contends that the mini mum flows are

4754not based on the best information available as required by

4764section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used

4774to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false

4784assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and

4792river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was

4801not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic

4809impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were

4817not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was

4828used.

48295 1 . Petitioner StillÓs arguments in this respect are based

4840largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance

4850of the technical data that was used and how it affects the

4862modeling results used in establish ing the minimum flows.

4871Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to

4880express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at

4891the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still

4901does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion

4912about the ability o f the model to use particular data or how the

4926model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena.

49345 2 . Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum

4945flows are not based on the best available information.

4954K. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vag ue

49625 3 . Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are

4972invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the

4983terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar

4994to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such

5003as Ðbest av ailable information,Ñ Ðimpact,Ñ Ðoffset,Ñ and

5014Ðeliminate.Ñ The term Ðpotential impactÑ is not materially

5022different than the term Ðimpact.Ñ

50275 4 . The term Ðbest available modeling toolsÑ is not vague.

5039It reflects the recognition that, like best available

5047i nformation, hydrologic models and technical information are

5055continually being created and updated.

50605 5 . Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of

5070ÐFlow Duration CurveÑ and ÐFlow Duration FrequencyÑ in proposed

5079rules 62 - 42.200(1) and (2), respective ly, are vague because they

5091do not state whether ÐsyntheticÑ data may be used in the

5102production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on

5114a specific period of record.

51195 6 . Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for

5131missing data and ar e created by extrapolating from existing

5141data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a modelÓs need

5154to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi - year

5168period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for

5179some of the months. The u se of synthetic data is a regular and

5193accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned

5204in the rule.

52075 7 . Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are

5218calculated from data covering specific periods of record.

5226Although the definitio ns of these two terms in proposed rule

523762 - 42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the

5248proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague.

52575 8 . Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule

526662 - 42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establ ishes the minimum

5277flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely

5288identifying the location. The record shows that the reference

5297in proposed rule 62 - 42.300(1)(a) to Ðthe Santa Fe River near Ft.

5310White, FLÑ is the actual name of the United State s Geological

5322Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years.

533359 . Furthermore, proposed rule 62 - 42.300(1)(c), which

5342establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers

5351to Ðthe respective river gages listed in paragraphs

535962 - 42.300 (1) (a) and (b).Ñ Therefore, it is made clear that the

5373reference to Ðthe Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FLÑ in proposed

5385rule 62 - 42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule

5398is not vague.

54016 0 . Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in

5412proposed 62 - 4 2.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the

5425period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration

5436curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in

5448the proposed rule to SRWMDÓs existing rule 40B - 8.061(1), which

5459identifies the te chnical report from which the flow duration

5469curve in that rule was derived.

54756 1 . A general description of flow duration curves is found

5487in ÐMinimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and

5498Ichetucknee River and Priority SpringsÑ dated November 22, 2013

5507(ÐMFL Technical DocumentÑ) , at page 3 - 6:

5515They show the percent of time specified

5522discharges were equaled or exceeded for a

5529continuous record in a given period . For

5537example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the

5545daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near

5554For t White (Figure 3 - 2) was at least 767

5565cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are

5574influenced by the period of record used in

5582their creation, but for comparison purposes

5588between different scenarios over a fixed

5594time period they are extremely useful.

5600[Empha sis added . ]

5605However, proposed rule 62 - 4 2.300(1) does not give the period of

5618record for the flow duration curves that will be used to

5629determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa

5639Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers.

56436 2 . Respondents argued that id entifying the period of

5654record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the

5663period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow

5674duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical

5684Document .

56866 3 . This is not a situation where a specific number and

5699unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based

5711on technical analys e s that can be found in documents. In such a

5725case, the technical documents are not needed to determine

5734compliance with the criterion; they simply exp lain why the

5744criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve,

5755however, the period of record for the data to be used must be

5768known to determine compliance.

57726 4 . For example, proposed rule 62 - 42.300(1)(a)1. would

5783establish the following criteri on: Ð3,101 cubic feet per second

5794(cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five pe rc ent.Ñ Five

5806percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what

5818time period? Must the same synthetic data be used?

582765. The rule does not inform p ersons subject to the rule

5839what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would

5849not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without

5858reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows

5867are not completely identified in the rule , they are vagu e.

5878L. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each

5888Priority Spring

58906 6 . Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are

5901invalid because minimum flows are not established for each

5910priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He cl aims

5921that each spring needs its own minimum flow Ðthat takes into

5932account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.Ñ

59426 7 . DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing

5952minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there

5961were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did

5970not refute this evidence.

5974M. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of

5983the MFL Water Bodies

59876 8 . The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must

5998reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require

6007monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did

6018not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures

6026are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I .

603469 . The Alliance did not show there are permitting

6044mechanism s that have been used by other water management

6054districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that

6066are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective.

6077The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory

6087measures other water management di stricts have adopted as part

6097of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water

6107Management District (ÐSWFWMDÑ). That evidence showed that

6114SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted

6123uses to continue their water withdrawals w hile new water

6133supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed.

61397 0 . The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory

6149Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are

6158projected to be numerous , new agricultural water use s in Phase

6169I . However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be

6181allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance

6191makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water

6199users who will request an increase in water. Under section

62096.5(c), in creases in water use will not be allowed to adversely

6221impact the MFL water bodies.

6226N . Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith

6237Estimate s and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the

6246Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternative s

62517 1 . Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under

6262section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his

6272allegations that DEPÓs original SERC or the revised SERC were

6282not good faith estimate s of regulatory costs associated with the

6293Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith

6303estimates.

630472. He also failed to meet his burden under section

6314120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his

6323allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented

6332could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory

6341alternative .

6343CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6346A. Standing

63487 3 . Any person substantially affected by an existing or

6359proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the

6368invalidity of the rule. See § 120.56(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

63777 4 . The burden is on th e petitioner to prove standing.

6390DepÓt of Health and Rehab . Servs . v. Alice P. , 367 So. 2d 1045,

64051052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

64107 5 . Generally, to establish standing a party must show the

6422challenged agency action will result in a real or immediate

6432injury in fac t and the alleged interest is within the zone of

6445interest to be protected or regulated. See Jacoby v. Fla. Bd.

6456of Med . , 917 So. 2d 358, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

64687 6 . A less demanding test for standing is applicable in

6480rule challenge cases than in licensin g cases. See Fla. DepÓt of

6492Prof. Reg. v. Fla. Dental Hygienists AssÓn , 612 So. 2d 646, 651 -

650552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In a rule challenge, the alleged injury

6517does not have to be immediate. See NAACP v. Fla. Bd. of

6529Regents , 863 So. 2d 294, 300 (Fla. 2003).

65377 7 . Petitioner Still is substantially affected by the

6547Proposed Rules and has standing as a petitioner.

65557 8 . No IntervenorÓs standing to participate in these

6565consolidated cases was contested. The partiesÓ stipulated facts

6573show the Intervenors are substant ially affected by the Proposed

6583Rules. The Intervenors have standing to participate as parties.

659279 . For an association to establish its standing, it must

6603demonstrate that a substantial number of its members are

6612substantially affected by the rule, that the subject matter of

6622the rule is within the associationÓs general scope of interest

6632and activity, and that the relief requested is appropriate for

6642the association to receive for its members. Fla. Home Builders

6652AssÓn v. Dep ' t of Labor & Emp . Sec . , 412 So. 2d 351, 353 - 54

6671(Fla. 1982).

66738 0 . The Alliance satisfied the requirements for

6682association standing.

66848 1 . FWF was dismissed as a party at the beginning of the

6698final hearing, following legal argument and a n oral proffer by

6709FWF, because FWF was not prepared to p rove that a substantial

6721number of its members are substantially affected by the Proposed

6731Rules. FWF was recently dismissed as a party for a similar

6742reason in the case of Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v.

6752CRP/HLV Highlands Ranch, LLC. , Case No. 12 - 3219 (Fla. DOAH

6763Apr. 11, 2013; Fla. DEP Jun. 13, 2013) (Nineteen members is not a

6776substantial number of FWF's members) . It is apparent FWF

6786believes that because its mission is to protect natural

6795resources, and the challenged agency action affects natural

6803resour ces, FWFÓs standing should be satisfied by proof of these

6814facts. However, the courts have not applied a Ðmission testÑ

6824for associational standing. The test for associational standing

6832is to prove that a substantial number of the associationÓs

6842members woul d have standing as individuals to contest the agency

6853action.

68548 2 . Referring to the holdings in cases that have dealt

6866with association standing, JEA suggested in its Motion for

6875Summary Final Order that a substantial number of FWFÓs total

6885membership of 11,78 8 would be over a thousand persons. The

6897inconveniences to parties and court s associated with producing

6906at trial or hearing a thousand witnesses or even a few hundred

6918witnesses are obvious. 5 / It is unlikely the courts intended by

6930their decisions in these cases to require large associations to

6940prove standing through the testimony of hundreds of witnesses. 6 /

69518 3 . The membership list proffered by FWF shows there are

6963457 FWF members who reside in the six counties surrounding the

6974MFL waterbodies. This ÐlocalÑ membership may be a reasonable

6983focus in the Ðsubstantial numberÑ analysis for an association

6992with statewide, nationwide, or worldwide membership. However,

6999FWFÓs proffer showed it was not prepared to prove that a

7010substantial number of its members living in the vicinity of the

7021MFL water bodies are substantially affected by the Proposed

7030Rules. It failed to prove its standing. 7 /

7039B. General Rule Challenge Principles

70448 4 . A proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or

7057invalid. § 120.56(2)(c), Fla. Stat. A person challenging a

7066proposed rule must state "with particularity" the reasons that

7075the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

7084legislative authority. § 120.56(2), Fla. Stat. At hearing, the

7093petitioner has the burden of going forward with evide nce to

7104support the allegations in the petition. Id . If the challenger

7115meets this burden, the burden of persuasion shifts to the agency

7126to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed

7137rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

7146authority "as to the objections raised." Id .

71548 5 . The validity of a rule does not turn on whether it

7168represents the best means to accomplish the agency's purposes.

7177See Bd. of Trs . of Int . Impust Fund v. Levy , 656 So. 2d

71921359, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) .

71998 6 . To the extent that an agency's rule is based on an

7213interpretation of a statute that the agency administers, broad

7222discretion and deference is accorded the agency's interpretation

7230and it should be upheld when it is within the range of

7242permissible int erpretations. See Bd. of Podiatric Med. v. Fla.

7252Med. AssÓn , 779 So. 2d 658, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) .

72648 7 . An agency's interpretation of its own rules is also

7276entitled to great weight and should not be overturned unless it

7287is clearly erroneous . Falk v. Be ard , 614 So. 2d 1086, 1089

7300(Fla. 1993).

73028 8 . Deference to the agency's interpretation is especially

7312appropriate when the agency has made scientific determinations

7320within its area of special expertise. See Island Harbor Bch.

7330Club, Ltd. v. DepÓt of Nat . Res . , 495 So. 2d 209, 223 (Fla. 1st

7346DCA 1986).

7348C. Whether DEP must Adopt by Rule the Entire Recovery

7358Strategy

735989 . Petitioners contend that rules 62 - 42.100(1) and (2)

7370enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and

7377373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a

7388recovery strategy by rule, not just the Ðregulatory provisionsÑ

7397of a recovery strategy.

74019 0 . The statutes do not expressly prohibit DEP from

7412adopting less than all of a Recovery Strategy by rule, but

7423Petitioners argue that the wording of the statutes shows a plain

7434meaning that the entire Recovery Strategy must be adopted by

7444rule. Section 373.042(4) states:

7448A water management district shall provide

7454the department with technical information

7459and staff support for the development of a

7467reservation, minimum flow or level, or

7473recovery or prevention strategy to be

7479adopted by the department by rule.

74859 1 . The principal object of this sentence is the

7496requirement for water management district s to provide

7504information and support to DEP. The principal object is not to

7515require rulemaking. The required assistance is for things Ðto

7524be adopted by the department by rule.Ñ Standing alone, the

7534wording does not foreclose DEPÓs interpretation that the

7542required assistance is for whatever DEP inten ds to adopt by

7553rule.

75549 2 . Section 373.0421(2) states Ðthe department or

7563governing board, as part of the regional water supply plan

7573described in s. 373. 709 , shall expeditiously implement a

7582recovery or prevention strategy.Ñ Standing alone, this wording

7590als o fail s to give a definitive answer to the question.

76029 3 . However, sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) do not

7612stand alone. Their meaning is affected by the provisions of

7622section 373. 709 , which pertains to regional water supply plan s .

7634Such plan s are requi red to include MFLs and recovery strategies.

7646See § 373. 709 (2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat.

76559 4 . Section 373. 709 (5) provides that the approval of a

7668regional water supply plan by the water management district is

7678not subject to the rulemaking requirements of chapt er 120. See

7689§ 373. 709 (5), Fla. Stat. This likely indicates the

7699LegislatureÓs acknowledgement that a regional water supply plan,

7707which is to contain ÐprojectionsÑ and Ðalternatives,Ñ does not

7717fit the definition of a rule. However, section 373. 709 (7)

7728stat es that the plan may not be used in the review of permits

7742Ðunless the plan or an applicable portion thereof has been

7752adopted by rule.Ñ In other words, a plan is not subject to

7764rulemaking except for that portion of the plan that will be used

7776in the review of permits. The portion that will be used to

7788review permits (thus meeting the definition of a rule) must be

7799adopted pursuant to rulemaking requirements.

78049 5 . Based on the distinctions made in section 373. 709 , it

7817has been the practice of the water manageme nt districts to only

7829adopt the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy by rule, and

7840to implement the non - regulatory portion as a component of their

7852regional water supply plans.

78569 6 . When sections 373.042(4), 373.0421(2), and 373. 709 are

7867read together and harmonized, DEPÓs interpretation that it is

7876not required to adopt the non - regulatory p ortion of the Recovery

7889Strategy by rule is a reasonable interpretation.

7896D. Whether the Non - Regulatory Portion of the Recovery

7906Strategy is Reviewable in this Proceeding

79129 7 . Section 373. 709 ( 5 ) provides that approval of a

7926regional water supply plan is not subject to rulemaking, but

7936that Ðany portion of an approved plan which affects the

7946substantial interests of a party shall be subject to s.

7956120.569.Ñ Section 120.569 pro vides for administrative hearings

7964to contest agency action. The Alliance did not file a petition

7975to challenge SRWMDÓs approval of the Recovery Strategy pursuant

7984to section 120.569.

79879 8 . The Alliance contends that section 373. 709 ( 5 ) is

8001inapplicable because SRWMD has not adopted a regional water

8010supply plan , so the Recovery Strategy approved by SRWMD is not

8021part of a regional water supply plan . Whether section

8031373. 709 ( 5 ) is applicable is debatable b ecause MFLs and recovery

8045strategies are required components of a regional water supply

8054plan. However, regardless of whether 373. 709 ( 5 ) is applicable

8066to SRWMDÓs approval of the Recovery Strategy, section 120.569 is

8076applicable. Section 373. 709 ( 5 ) did not create a remedy for

8089challenging a water management districtÓ s action which affects a

8099personÓs substantial interests; it simply identified the remedy

8107that is available.

811099 . Under chapter 120, all agency action, whether by rule

8121or order, is reviewable upon timely petition by a substantially

8131affected person. If SRWM DÓs approval of the non - regulatory

8142portion of the Recovery Strategy affected the AllianceÓs

8150substantial interests, the Alliance could have challenged the

8158approval pursuant to section 120.569 and moved to consolidate

8167that case with its challenge to the Prop osed Rules.

817710 0 . T he Alliance did not file a petition to contest

8190SRWMDÓs action . Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge cannot

8199consider whether the non - regulatory portion of the Recovery

8209Strategy is consistent with the law implemented.

8216E. Whether the P roposed Rules Contravene the Statutes or

8226are Arbitrary Because they Allow Further Degradation of

8234the MFL Water Bodies

823810 1 . Section 120.52(8)(c) provides that a rule is an

8249invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if it

8257enlarges, modifies, or co ntravenes the law implemented.

826510 2 . S ection 120.52(8)(e) provides that a rule is invalid

8277if it is arbitrary or capricious. A rule is ÐarbitraryÑ if Ðit

8289is not supported by logic or the necessary factsÑ and it is

8301ÐcapriciousÑ if Ðit is adopted without tho ught or reason or is

8313irrational.Ñ Id. If there is any evidence to show a rational

8324basis for the rule, the rule is not arbitrary or capricious.

8335Levy at 1362 . A rule is not arbitrary or capricious if it is a

8350product of a process involving the thoughtful balancing of

8359various factors. Id . at 1363.

836510 3 . The flush left paragraph of section 373.0421(2)

8375states :

8377The recovery or prevention strategy shall

8383include phasing or a timetable which will

8390allow for the provision of sufficient water

8397supplies for all existi ng and projected

8404reasonable - beneficial uses, including

8409development of additional water supplies and

8415implementation of conservation and other

8420efficiency measures concurrent with, to the

8426extent practical, and to offset, reductions

8432in permitted withdrawals, c onsistent with

8438the provisions of this chapter.

84431 0 4 . It is significant that the law requires that a water

8457bodyÓs recovery be accomplished in phases. It logically follows

8466that recovery does not have to be accomplished in the first

8477phase.

84781 0 5 . It is also s ignificant that the express legislative

8491objective for phasing is to avoid the reduction of permitted

8501withdrawals until such reductions can be offset by new water

8511supplies and/or conservation and other efficiency measures, Ðto

8519the extent practicable.Ñ

85221 0 6 . The Alliance argues that the Proposed Rules must

8534Ðtake up the slackÑ caused by flaws in the non - regulatory

8546portion of the Recovery Strategy by immediately reducing

8554permitted withdrawals . That is not a legal argument. Section

8564373.0421(2) requires a recov ery strategy, as a whole, to achieve

8575recovery and it would be contrary to the law for DEP to attempt

8588to achieve recovery solely by reducing permitted withdrawals.

8596In addition, the non - regulatory portion of the Regulatory

8606Strategy is also in Phase I . It i s not required to achieve full

8621recovery of the minimum flows. Although it sets targets for

8631full recovery, those targets can be revised at any time to

8642account for improved information.

86461 0 7 . The Alliance argues that the Proposed Rules

8657contravene the law be cause they seek only to Ðhold the lineÑ on

8670impacts rather than make progress toward recovery. However,

8678t here is no wording in the statutes that indicates preventing

8689further impacts is not a n acceptable objective for Phase I

8700regulatory measures .

87031 0 8 . The Alliance claims the Proposed Rules will not hold

8716the line on degradation because of the consumptive use permits

8726that have been issued since 2010 and the projected new permits

8737that will be issued or renewed with increases. The Proposed

8747Rules cannot hold th e line until they go into effect. When the

8760Proposed Rules go into effect, they w ill prevent new water uses

8772and increases in water use from harm ing the MFL water bodies.

87841 09 . The Alliance did not prove there would be no progress

8797toward recovery in Phase I when the Recovery Strategy is

8807considered as a whole . The Alliance did not prove that the

8819Supplemental Regulatory Measures prevent recovery .

882511 0 . The Alliance failed to prove that the Proposed Rules

8837contravene the law implemented or that they are arbitra ry or

8848capricious.

8849F . Whether the Proposed Rules Contravene the Law

8858Implemented Because they Exempt Impacts Caused by

8865Georgia Water Users.

886811 1 . Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory

8877Measures states:

8879Nothing contained in this Section shall be

8886construed to require a permittee in Florida

8893to be responsible for recovery from impacts

8900to an MFL water body from water users in

8909Georgia, or in any case to be responsible

8917for more than its proportionate share of

8924impacts to an MFL water body that fails to

8933mee t the established minimum flow or level.

8941The Alliance described this as an ÐexemptionÑ that contravenes

8950section 373.042 because the statute does not provide for such an

8961exemption.

896211 2 . The AllianceÓs argument seems to be based on the

8974belief that section 6.5(f) would prevent recovery because if the

8984impact of Georgia water users is not offset , the flows in the

8996MFL water bodies would remain below the minimum flows . However,

9007t o have th at effect, section 6.5(f) would have to state that

9020Florida water users ar e only responsible for their proportionate

9030share of the water deficit below the minimum flow . Instead, t he

9043section uses the phrase Ðproportionate share of impacts to an

9053MFL water body.Ñ

90561 1 3 . Even under the AllianceÓs apparent interpretation of

9067the secti on, it would not contravene the law implemented because

9078the law allows recovery to be achieved in phases .

9088G. Summary

909011 4 . It is obvious that the Alliance wants DEP and the

9103SRWMD to be more aggressive in Phase I , but its claim that the

9116Supplemental Regula tory Measures contravene the law implemented

9124is not based on section 373.0421(2), which is the only place

9135where the Legislature describes a recovery strategy . Section

9144373.0421(2) does not show a legislative intent that recovery

9153strategies should be aggres sive in the first phase. It clearly

9164does not show a legislative intent for recovery strategies to be

9175aggressive in reducing permitted withdrawals in the first phase.

91841 1 5 . Section 373.0421(2) also states that recovery is to

9196be achieved Ðas soon as practic able, Ñ but the Alliance presented

9208no evidence on the subject of what is practicable.

921711 6 . DEP probably ha s discretion to do more under the law

9231being implemented, but the Alliance did not prove that the law

9242requires DEP to do more.

9247H . Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague

92551 1 7 . Section 120.52(8)(d) provides that a rule is an

9267invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if it is

9276vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency

9284decisions, or vests Ðunbridled discretionÑ in the agency.

92921 1 8 . Vagu eness requires a determination that the rule

9304forbids or requires the performance of an act in terms that are

9316so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at its

9327meaning and differ as to its application. S . Fla. Water Mgmt.

9339Dist. v. Charlotte Cn ty. , 774 So. 2d 903, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA

93522001).

93531 19 . The field of environmental regulation has been

9363acknowledged in several court decisions as one requiring rules

9372that allow flexibility in dealing with the Ðinfinite varietyÑ of

9382situations that can occur. Se e Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State , 723

9394So. 2d 199 , 207 (Fla. 1998). F lexibility to administer a

9405legislatively articulated policy is essential to meet the

9413complexities of our modern society. Albrecht v. DepÓt of Envtl.

9423Reg . , 353 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied , 359 So.

94372d 1210 (Fla. 1978) ; Brewster Phosphates v. State, DepÓt of

9447Envtl. Reg . , 444 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied , 450 So.

94612d 485 (Fla. 1984).

946512 0 . General terms such as ÐharmfulÑ or ÐsignificantÑ

9475pollution are a practical necessi ty in regulating complex

9484subjects. Cross Key Waterways v. Askew , 351 So. 2d 1062, 1069

9495(Fla. 1st DCA 1977), approved , 372 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1978) ;

9506Watson v. City of St. Petersburg , 489 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA),

9519rev. denied , 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1986).

952712 1 . The evidence demonstrated that, except with respect

9537to the description of the flow duration curves in proposed rules

954862 - 42.300 (1) (a) and (b), the terms in the Proposed Rules which

9562Petitioner Still contends are vague reflect the need for

9571scientific judgment in making permitting decisions that involve

9579the complexities inherent in natural systems. Dr. Still did not

9589prove these terms are vague.

959412 2 . By omitting the period of record for the flow

9606duration curve and the synthetic data used to generate the cur ve

9618or, alternatively, a reference to the technical report where the

9628information can be found, the minimum flows in proposed rule

963862 - 42.300(1) are not adequately described. They are vague.

9648I. Unpromulgated Rule Challenge

96521 2 3 . Any person substantially affected by an agency

9663statement may seek an administrative determination that the

9671statement violates the rulemaking requirements of section

9678120.54(1)(a).

96791 2 4 . Petitioner Still failed to prove that the Recovery

9691Strategy approved by SRWMD violates section 1 20.54(1)(a). The

9700Recovery Strategy includes the Supplemental Regulatory Measures,

9707which meet the definition of a rule, but they were adopted by

9719DEP in conformance with section 120.54(1)(a).

97251 2 5 . Petitioner Still failed to prove that the non -

9738regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy included statements

9746that required rulemaking.

9749J . Whether the Proposed Rules Are Invalid Because DEP did

9760not Respond to Petitioner StillÓs Second LC RA

976812 6 . A proposed rule is invalid under section 120.52(8)(f)

9779if it imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by

9789adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially

9796accomplish the statutory objectives.

980012 7 . Upon submission of a LCRA pursuant to section

9811120.541(1)(a), the agency must revise its prior statement and

9820eithe r adopt the alternative or provide a statement of the

9831reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed

9841rule.

984212 8 . A rule is invalid under section 120.52(8)(a) if the

9854agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking

9863procedures or requirements.

98661 29 . Section 120.541(1)(e) states that an agencyÓs failure

9876to respond to a LCRA is a material failure to follow the

9888applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements .

989413 0 . On April 8, 2014, DEP published a Notice of Change

9907regarding sect ions 6.5(c)ii and 6.5(d)ii of the Supplemental

9916Regulatory Measures. In the Notice of Change, DEP gave notice

9926that it had prepared an Ðupdated revisedÑ SERC pursuant to

9936section 120.541.

993813 1 . Following the Notice of Change, Petitioner Still

9948submitted to DE P a second LCRA. DEP rejected the second LCRA as

9961untimely.

996213 2 . Section 120.541(1)(a) states that a substantially

9971affected person may submit a LCRA within 21 days Ðafter

9981publication of the notice required under s. 120.54(3)(a).Ñ

9989Respondents argue there is no provision for a LCRA to be

10000submitted in response to a Notice of Change and , because the

10011second LCRA was submitted more than 21 days after publication of

10022the Notice of Proposed Rule , it was untimely.

1003013 3 . This issue has not previously been addressed by the

10042courts. The issue is not as clear as Respondents suggest

10052because , although there is no express provision for a second

10062LCRA, the effect of not allowing a LCRA to be submitted in

10074response to a Notice of Change is that the legislative intent to

10086preve nt agencies from imposing unnecessary regulatory costs

10094would seem to be thwarted and may even be sabotaged by an

10106agency Ós practice of waiting to put costly regulations in a

10117Notice of Change. However, the issue need not be resolved here

10128because a rule may not be declared invalid based on the

10139rejection of a LCRA unless Ðthe substantial interests of the

10149person challenging the rule are materially affected by the

10158rejection.Ñ See § 120.541(1)(g) .

10163134. Petitioner Still did not demonstrate that he was

10172materially affected by the rejection of his second LCRA . He has

10184no water use permit that could be affected by the Supplemental

10195Regulatory Measures that were changed. His statement that he

10204expects to apply for a permit at some indefinite point in the

10216future is a ma tter of speculation. Furthermore, the subject

10226rules could be replaced by other rules in Phase II of the

10238Recovery Strategy before Petitioner Still applies for a permit.

10247CONCLUSION

10248Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

10258Law, it is det ermined that:

102641. Proposed rule 62 - 42.100 is a valid exercise of

10275delegated legislative authority;

102782. Proposed rule 62 - 42.200 is a valid exercise of

10289delegated legislative authority;

102923. Proposed rules 62 - 42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid

10302exercises of delega ted legislative authority; and

103094. Proposed rules 62 - 42.300(1)( c ) , (d), and (e) and the

10322Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in

10329proposed rule 62 - 42.300(1)(d) are valid exercises of delegated

10339legislative authority .

10342DONE AND ORDERED thi s 11th day of September, 2014, in

10353Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

10357S

10358BRAM D. E. CANTER

10362Administrative Law Judge

10365Division of Administrative Hearings

10369The DeSoto Building

103721230 Apalachee Parkway

10375Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

10380(850) 488 - 9675

10384Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

10390www.doah.state.fl.us

10391Filed with the Clerk of the

10397Division of Administrative Hearings

10401this 11th day of September, 2014.

10407ENDNOTES

104081/ The boundaries of the water management districts were

10417established based on t he watersheds of major surface waters.

10427Surface watershed boundaries do not accurately describe

10434groundwater resources or groundwater flow.

104392/ This is not a misspelling. Hydrologists have replaced the

10449word ÐgaugeÑ with ÐgageÑ for reasons not in the recor d.

104603 / DEPÓs SERC states that 230 permits are due to be renewed

10473during 2014 - 2018, representing about 67 million gallons per day

10484as an average daily rate. It is estimated that 72 of these

10496permitted uses (about 29 percent) may be having an adverse

10506effect o n the MFL water bodies. Alliance Ex. 3, Table 2 - 1.

105204 / T he re was considerable dispute about whether a pattern

10532(graphed data) of declining groundwater levels documented in the

105412010 Water Assessment will continue through Phase I . The

10551Alliance did not prov e that the factors which affected

10561groundwater levels in the past will remain unchanged and,

10570therefore that the pattern of decline will remain unchanged in

10580Phase I . However, th e issue is not whether a past pattern of

10594groundwater decline will look the same in five years. The issue

10605is whether estimated groundwater levels will be lower than has

10615been estimated .

106185 / A witness may name other members who go canoeing together on

10631an affected river or attend an annual festival at the river.

10642However, FWF did not pr offer such testimony.

106506 / This discussion assumes that opposing parties will not agree

10661to affidavits, signature petitions, or any other out - of - court

10673statement s to establish that a substantial number of an

10683associationÓs members are substantially affected.

106887 / FWF was represented by the same attorneys as the Alliance and

10701its issues were identical to those of the Alliance. Therefore,

10711its interests in the case were preserved despite its dismissal

10721for lack of standing.

10725COPIES FURNISHED:

10727Paul Edward Still

1073014167 Southwest 101st Avenue

10734Starke, Florida 32091

10737(eServed)

10738Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire

10742Frederick T. Reeves, P.A.

107465709 Tidalwave Drive

10749New Port Richey, Florida 34562

10754(eServed)

10755George T. Reeves, Esquire

10759Davis, Schnitker, Reeves and Browning, P.A.

10765Post Office Drawer 652

10769Madison, Florida 32341

10772(eServed)

10773Edward P. de la Parte, Esquire

10779Nicolas Q. Porter, Esquire

10783de la Parte and Gilbert, P.A.

10789Suite 2000

10791101 East Kennedy Boulevard

10795Tampa, Florida 33602

10798(eServed)

10799David G. Guest, Esquire

10803Monica K. Reimer, E squire

10808Alisa Coe, Esquire

10811Bradley Marshall, Esquire

10814Earthjustice

10815111 South Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

10822Tallahassee, Florida 32301

10825(eServed)

10826Vance W. Kidder, Esquire

10830St. Johns River Water Management

10835District

108364049 Reid Street

10839Palatka, Florida 3217 7 - 2529

10845(eServed)

10846Sylvia Torres, Esquire

10849Alachua County

10851Post Office Box 5547

10855Gainesville, Florida 32627

10858(eServed)

10859Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire

10863Springfield Law, P.A.

10866806 Northwest 16th Avenue , Suite B

10872Gainesville, Florida 32608

10875(eServed)

10876David M . Lang , Jr. , Esquire

10882Gilchrist County Attorney

10885Post Office Box 51

10889Trenton, Florida 32693

10892(eServed)

10893James W. Prevatt, Esquire

10897Suwannee County Attorney

10900Prevatt Law Firm, P.L.

10904123 East Howart Street

10908Live Oak, Florida 32064

10912(eServed)

10913William E . Sexton, Cou nty Attorney

10920Bradford County, Florida

10923945 North Temple Avenue

10927Starke, Florida 32091

10930(eServed)

10931Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire

10935Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A.

10940Post Office Drawer 3007

10944St. Augustine, Florida 32085 - 3007

10950(eServed)

10951Marlin M. Feagle, Esquire

10955Columbia County Attorney

10958Post Office Box 1653

10962Lake City, Florida 32056 - 1653

10968Douglas Beason, Esquire

10971Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

10974Benjamin Melnick, Esquire

10977Kristine P. Jones, Esquire

10981Department of Environmental Protection

10985Mail Station 35

109883900 Commonwealt h Boulevard

10992Tallahassee, Florida 32399

10995(eServed)

10996Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

11001Department of Environmental Protection

11005Mail Station 35

110083900 Commonwealth Boulevard

11011Tallahassee, Florida 32399

11014(eServed)

11015Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel

11020Department of Environmental Protection

11024Mail Station 35

110273900 Commonwealth Boulevard

11030Tallahassee, Florida 32399

11033(eServed)

11034Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

11038Department of Environmental Protection

11042Mail Station 35

110453900 Commonwealth Boulevard

11048Tallahassee, Florida 32399

11051(eServe d)

11053Ken Plante, Coordinator

11056Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

11060Room 680, Pepper Building

11064111 West Madison Street

11068Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

11073(eServed)

11074Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

11078Administrative Code

11080Department of State

11083R. A. Gray Building, Suite 101

11089Tallahassee, Florida 32399

11092(eServed)

11093Ann Shortelle, Executive Director

11097Suwannee River Water Management District

111029225 County Road 49

11106Live Oak, F lorida 32060

11111(eServed)

11112NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

11118A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

11129entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida

11138Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

11147of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

11155filing the original notice of admini strative appeal with the

11165agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within

1117430 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of

11188the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law,

11198with the clerk of the District Court of Ap peal in the appellate

11211district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a

11221party resides or as otherwise provided by law.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2015
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding records to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2014
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2014
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held May 28 through 30 and June 12 through 13, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Notice of Filing Hearing Exhibits 36 and 37 (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Supplemental Proposed Final Order of Intervenor Alachua County filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Ichetucknee Alliance's Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplemental Proposed Final Order of Intervenors Columbia County, Gilchrist County, and Suwannee County filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's, Clay County Utility Authority's, and JEA's Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's (Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2014
Proceedings: Opinion
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Transcript Volume I-IX (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2014
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, First DCA Case No. 1D14-2927 filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: appellant is directed to file conformed copies of the orders of the lower tribunal from which the appeal is being taken filed by the First District Court of Appeal.
Date: 06/12/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Hearing (hearing set for June 12 and 13, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2014
Proceedings: Amended Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 05/28/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to June 12, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Request to Take Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Relief From and to Correct "Prehearing Stipulation" filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Benjamin Melnick) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash Subpoena of Ken Weber filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Use of Summary Exhibit filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion to Quash Subpoena of Ken Weber filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Bradley Marshall) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Response to NFUCGs, CCUAs, and JEAs Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Use of Summary Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Errata with regards to Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2014
Proceedings: Order (on motion in limine).
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2014
Proceedings: (Joint) Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion in Limine to Exclude NFUCG's Expert Witness from Testifying at Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Motion for Summary Final Order Against Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting third motion to amend petition).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Cancellation of Depositions Duces Tecum of Alachua County Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Notice of Supplemental Authority filed.
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Notice of Filing Redline Comparison of Revisions to Recovery Strategy Between DEP's March 7, 2014 Notice of Proposed Rule and DEP's April 8, 2014 Notice of Change filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Response of Intervenor, St. Johns River Water Management District, to Florida Wildlife Federation/Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion in Limine Concerning NFUCG's Expert Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Notice to Parties.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion in Limine to Exclude NFUCG's Expert Witness from Testifying at Hearing and Motion for Expedited Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 28 through 30 and June 17, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL; amended as to additional hearing dates).
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's Notice of Availability for May 30 and or June 17 Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: NNFUCG's, CCUA's, AND JEA's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Third Motion to Amend Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum of Intervenor Alachua County's Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Columbia County's Unopposed Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Alachua County Notice Concerning Hearing Dates filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Availability for June 17 Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice Regarding Availability of June 17, 2014 as an Additional Hearing Date (filed in Case No. 14-001644RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice Regarding Availability of June 17, 2014 as an Additional Hearing Date (filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice Regarding Availability of June 17, 2014 as an Additional Hearing Date (filed in Case No. 14-001421RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice Regarding Availability of June 17, 2014 as an Additional Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Gilchrist County Notice Concerning Hearing Dates filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice Regarding Availability of June 17, 2014, as an Additonal Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response in Oppostion to Florida Wildlife Fedration and Ichetucknee Alliance's Third Motion to Amend Petition and Motion for Expedited Response Time and Hearing on Motion, if Necessary filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Notice of Serving Answers to Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: FWF's and IA's Notice of Service of Responses to FDEP's First Set of Interrogatories to FWF, First Set of Interrogatories to IA, & First Request to Produce to FWF and IA filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting Department of Environmental Protection's unopposed request for official recognition).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Alachua County's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: St. John's River Water Management District's Notice Concerning Hearing Dates filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Third Motion to Amend Petition and Motion for Expedited Response Time and Expedited Hearing if Necessary filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Suwanee River Water Management District's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Set of Interrogatories to Suwanee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Corrected Response to Petitioner Paul Still's Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response to Petitioner Paul Still's Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federations and Ichetucknee Alliance's Second Request to Produce to Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Response to Paul Still's First and Second Requests for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.'s First and Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: (Joint) Notice of No Objection to May 30, 2014 Additional Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: Order Requiring Response from Parties.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Amended Notice of Taking 1.310(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum of Clay County Utility Authority filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Amended Notice of Taking 1.310(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum of JEA filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Amended Notice of Taking 1.310(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum of North Florida Utility Coordinating Group filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's and JEA's Notice of Serving Corrected Answers to Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: (Proposed) Exhibit Disclosure of the Suwannee River Water Mangement District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Response to SRWMD's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Order (on Paul Still's motion to enlarge time to disclose exhibits).
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Amend Petition.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Responses to SRWMD's First Set of Interrogatories & First Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Amended Notice of Taling Depositions Duces Tecum of Respondent FDEP's Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Exhibit Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's, CCUAs, and JEAs Exhibit Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: (Proposed) Exhibit Disclosure for Paul Still filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Alachua County's (Proposed) Exhibit Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's Response to SRWMD's Request for Documents to be Produced filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's Response to SRWMD's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting stipulated motion to confirm and order deposition schedule).
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federations Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum of Respondent FDEPs Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Notice of Serving Answers to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Motion to Amend Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's Motion to Enlarge Time to Disclose (Proposed) Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: Order (on motions to dismiss).
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG, CCUA and JEAs Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum and Amended Notice of Taking Rule 1.310(b)(6) Depositions Duces Tecum to Petitioner Ichetucknee Alliance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioner's motion to enlarge hearing dates and motion in limine).
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion to Enlarge Hearing Dates and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2014
Proceedings: FWFs Notice of Service of Responses to SRWMD's First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protections Response to Petitioners First Request for Production (filed in Case No. 14-001644RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEPs Answers to Petitioners Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 14-001644RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management Districts Response to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federations First Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management Districts Response to Petitioner Paul Stills First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's and JEA's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's and Ichetucknee Alliance's Motion to Enlarge Hearing Dates and Motion in Liminie filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petitions to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice of Service of Suwanee River Water Management District's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Interrogatories to Suwanee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2014
Proceedings: Conservationists' Motion to Enlarge Hearing Dates and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioners') Stipulated Motion to Confirm and Order Deposition Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Amended Notice of Taking Rule 1.310(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Bradford County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001421RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Bradford County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Bradford County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001644RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by Suwanee County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001644RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by Suwanee County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by Suwanee County, Florida; filed in Case No. 14-001421RP).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by Suwanee County, Florida) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (David Lang) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Granting Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Intervene (filed by Gilchrist County) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion to Dismiss Petition and in the Alternative to Exclude Categories of Evidence (Case Number 14-1644RP) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2014
Proceedings: SRWMD's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum of Petitioner Still, Petitioner Still's Witness, and Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.'s and Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc.'s Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: FWFs Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of Tom Greenhalgh and Rodney DeHan filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion to Dismiss Petition and in the Alternative to Exclude Categories of Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Alachua County's Potential Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Amended Composite Petition Requesting an Administrative Hearing Review of the Department of Environmental Protection Rules 62-42.100 Scope 62-42.200 Definitions 62-42.300 Minimum Flows and Levels and Recovery and Prevenrtion Strategies filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Corrected Notice of Consultation on Additional Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Order (granting unopposed motion to enlarge time to disclose witnesses).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: NFUCG's, CCUA's and JEA's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum and Notice of Taking Rule 1.310(b)(6) Depositions Duces Tecum to Petitioners Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Consultation on Additional Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: Alachua County's Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Time to Disclose Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Unopposed Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking 1.310(b) Deposition Duces Tecum of Suwanee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum of Intervenor NFUCG's Witness Brett Goodman filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking 1.310(b) Deposition Duces Tecum of North Florida Utility Coordinating Group filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking 1.310(b) Deposition Duces Tecum of JEA filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWFs Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Respondent FDEP's Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking 1.310(b) Deposition Duces Tecum of FDEP and Intervenor SRWMD's Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Taking 1.310(b) Deposition Duces Tecum of Clay County Utility Authority filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of First Request for Production on Intervenor North Florida Utility Coordinating Group, et al filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of First Request for Production on Intervenor St. Johns River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent, Department of Environemtnal Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc & Florida WIldlife Federation, Inc filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Request for Production on Intervenor Suwannee River Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories on North Florida Utility Coordinating Group, et al filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Request for Production on Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Document Production to Petitioners, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. and Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories on St. Johns River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories on Suwannee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories on Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories on Intervenor Alachua County filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents to SJRWMD filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's Second Request for Production of Documents to SJRWMD filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Alachua County's Unopposed Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Notice of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Potential Witness Disclosure of the Suwannee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Paul Still's Potential Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation and Ichetucknee Alliance's Potential Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Notice of NFUCG's, CCUA's, and JEA's Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Amend.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Order of Dismissal.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation Et Al.'s Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's Notice of Filing First Set of Interogatories to Petitioner, Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories on North Florida Utility Coordinating Groups, et al filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to St. Johns River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Unopposed Motion to Amend Petition and Add a Party filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Order (on motion to expedite discovery and amend Order of Pre-hearing Instructions).
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petitions to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Paul's Request to Amend His Petition DOAH Case No.: 14-1421RU filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenors, North Florida Utility Coordinating Group, Clay County Utility Authority and JEA filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Request for Production to Intervenors North Florida Utility Coordianting Group, Clay County Utility Authority and JEA filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Paul Still filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Paul Still filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Request for Production on Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's, Clay County Utility Authorities's and JEAs Unopposed Petition to Intervene in Case No. 14-1644RP filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Petition to Intervene in Case Nos. 14-1443RP and 14-1644RP filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Petition to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Florida Wildlife Federation's First Request for Production on Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Response in Support of Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion to Expedite Discovery and to Amend Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories on Suwannee River Water Management District filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories on Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion to Expedite Discovery and Amend Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Paul Still's Response to Respondent's Filings Related to Paul Still's Request for Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Department's Objection to Petitioner's Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion to Dismiss Petition (filed in Case No.:14-1421RP filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion to Dismiss Petition (filed in Case No.: 14-1420RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Suwannee River Water Management Districts Objection to Petitioner, Paul Still's, First Request for Production of Documents to SRWMD filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case No. 14-1644RP)).
PDF:
Date: 04/17/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Nicolas Porter) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Edward de la Parte) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's, Clay County Utility Authority's and JEA's Unopposed Petition to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Response to Motion to Dismiss Petition (filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion to Dismiss Petition (filed in Case No. 14-001421RP).
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion to Dismiss Petitions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2014
Proceedings: Amendment 1 to a Petition Requesting Administrative Hearing Review (filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents to DEP (filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents to SRWMD (filed in Case No. 14-001443RP).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 28 and 29, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 14-1420RU, 14-1421RP, and 14-1443RP)).
Date: 04/02/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance as Additional Attorney (George Reeves) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conference (status conference set for April 2, 2014; 11:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Frederick Reeves) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Frederick Reeves) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (W. Beason) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Kristine Morris) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2014
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2014
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Petition Requesting an Administrative Hearing Review of Department of Environmental Protection Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
03/24/2014
Date Assignment:
03/26/2014
Last Docket Entry:
07/16/2015
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Water Management Districts
Suffix:
RP
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (9):