14-005658RP
Paul Still vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Friday, February 13, 2015.
DOAH Final Order on Friday, February 13, 2015.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8PAUL STILL,
10Petitioner,
11vs. Case No. 14 - 5658RP
17DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
20PROTECTION,
21Respondent,
22and
23SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
27DISTRICT, NORTH FLORIDA UTILITY
31COORDINATING GROUP, AND ST.
35JOHNS WA TER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
40Intervenors.
41_______________________________/
42KATHLEEN STILL,
44Petitioner,
45vs. Case No. 14 - 6132RP
51DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
54PROTECTION,
55Respondent,
56and
57SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
61DISTRICT AND NORTH FLORIDA
65UTILITY COORDINA TING GROUP,
69Intervenors.
70_______________________________/
71SUMMARY FINAL ORDER
74Petitioner Paul Still , Respondent Department of
80Environmental Protection (ÐDepartmentÑ) , and Interv enor Suwanee
87River Water Management District filed motions for summary final
96order. A hearing on the motions was held on February 6, 2015, in
109Tallahassee, Florida , before Bram D.E. Canter, Administrative Law
117Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearing s (ÐDOAHÑ).
126APPEARANCES
127For Petitioners: Paul Edward Still , pro se
134Kathleen M. Still , pro se
13914167 Southwest 101st Avenue
143Starke, Florida 32091
146For Respondent: Jeffrey Brow n, Esquire
152Department of Environmental Protection
156Office of General Counsel
160Mail Station 35
1633900 Commonwealth Boulevard
166Tallahassee, Florid a 32399 - 3000
172For Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District:
179Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire
183Frederick T. Reeves, P.A.
1875709 Tidalwave Drive
190New Port Ri chey, Florida 34562
196George T. Reeves, Esquire
200Davis, Schnitker, Reeves
203and Browning, P.A.
206Post Office Drawer 652
210Madison, Florida 32341
213For Intervenor North Florida Utility Coordinating Group:
220Edward P. De La Parte, Jr., Esquire
227Nicolas Porter, Esquire
230De La Parte and Gilbert, P.A.
236101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2000
242Post Office Box 2350
246Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350
251For Intervenor St. Johns River Water Management District:
259Kris H. Davis, Esquire
263St. Johns River Water Management District
2694049 Reid Street
272Palatka, Florida 32178
275STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
279The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is
289whether proposed Florida Administrative Co de Rule 62 - 42.300 is an
301invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
307PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
309In March 2014, the Department proposed to adopt rules
31862 - 42.100, 62 - 42.200, and 62 - 42.300, which would establish
331minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River and Lower Santa Fe River,
342together with their associated springs (Ðthe MFL waterbodiesÑ)
350and establish special review criteria for proposed water
358withdrawals in the area of the MFL waterbodies. Petitioner
367Paul Still and two environmental associations chal lenged the
376proposed rules as invalid exercises of delegated legislative
384authority. Petitioner Still also challenged the Statement of
392Estimated Regulatory Costs (ÐSERCÑ) the Department prepared in
400conjunction with the proposed rules. Following a DOAH hear ing, a
411Final Order was issued on September 11, 2014, which determined
421that proposed rules 62 - 42.100 and 62 - 42.200 were valid, but the
435minimum flows set forth i n proposed rule 62 - 42.300 were invalid
448because they were vague. That rule challenge proceeding i s
458referred to hereafter as ÐStill - I.Ñ
465On November 7, 2014, the Department published a Notice of
475Change, which described changes to proposed rule 62 - 42.300
485intended to address the vagueness issue. The Department also
494prepared an a ddendum to its SERC. Paul Still filed a petition
506challenging proposed rule 62 - 42.300; both the changed and the
517unchanged parts of the rule. He also challenged the SERC
527a ddendum. Subsequently, a nearly identical petition was filed by
537Paul StillÓs wife, Kathleen Still.
542FINDINGS OF FACT
5451. The parties agree and the Administrative Law Judge has
555determined that there exists no genuine issue as to any material
566fact.
5672. In the December 4, 2014 SERC a ddendum, the Department
578described the changes to the proposed rule as follow s:
588The Notice of Change filed on November 7,
5962014 does not change the proposed minimum
603flows or the recovery strategy included in
610the proposed rules. The Notice of Change
617merely adds the existing technical
622information that the Administrative Law Judge
628fou nd missing in the original rule text,
636which results in the proposed rule being
643found by the Judge to be vague.
650Specifically, these changes include:
6541) Adding the period of record used to
662establish the baseline flows in the Lower
669Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and
675subsequently used to develop the proposed
681minimum flows, and,
6842) Adding the method used for filling the
692data gaps in the baseline flow record for the
701Ichetucknee River.
7033. The Final Order in Still - I determined that the proposed
715minimum flow s were vague because they did not include a period of
728record (of water flow data) to be used with the flow duration
740frequencies. Flow duration frequencies are percentages of time
748that a p articular amount of flow ( in cubic feet per second ) is
763equaled or ex ceeded , which can vary depending on the period of
775record that is used . The proposed rule now describes the period
787of record that was used to derive the minimum flows.
7974. Petitioners contend that the rule is still vague because
807the rule does not identify the period of record that will be used
820in the future to determine whether the minimum flows are being
831achieved. Petitioners expressed concern that Suwannee River
838Water Management District might use a scientifically unsound
846period of record to determine th at the MFL waterbodies are no
858longer Ð in recovery. Ñ
8635 . Neither the Department nor Suwan n ee River Water
874Management District identified in Still - I or in this proceeding
885the period of record that will be used to determine whether the
897minimum flows have been achieved. However, the Recovery Strategy
906for the MFL waterbodies is in its first phase. The rule
917contemplates that the MFL waterbodies will remain in recovery at
927least until completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia
936Regional Groundwater Flow Model in 2019 and the MFLs and the
947Recovery Plan are re - evaluated with the model as part of phase
9602. See proposed Fla. Admin. C ode R . 62 - 42.300(1)(d). This
973interpretation was confirmed by the Department and the District
982at the hearing on the motions for summa ry final order.
9936 . T he Supplemental Regulatory Measures (which are
1002unchanged) do not require applicants for consumptive use permits
1011to determine or show how a proposed withdrawal of water will
1022affect the flow duration frequencies set forth in the rule. T he
1034period of record to be used in determining whether the minimum
1045flow s are achieved is not used in the permitting process.
1056CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10597. Any person substantially affected by a proposed rule may
1069seek an administrative determination of the inv alidity of the
1079rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of
1091delegated legislative authority. § 120.56(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
10988. A party may move for summary final order when there is
1110no genuine issue as to any material fact. § 120.57(1)(h), Fl a.
1122Stat. The Administrative Law Judge has determined that no
1131genuine issue as to any material fact exists and the parties are
1143entitled as a matter of law to the entry of a final order.
11569 . The doctrine of res judicata applies to bar a cause of
1169action when that cause was fully a djudicated in a previous
1180lawsuit between the same parties and a judgment on the merits was
1192rendered. See Kimbrell v. Page , 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984).
1203The estoppel applies to every matter presented and every other
1213matter Ðthat mig ht with propriety have been litigated and
1223determined in that action.Ñ Id. , at 1012.
12301 0 . The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar the
1242re - litigation of specific factual and legal issues that were
1253previously adjudicated in a proceeding between the same parties,
1262but involving a different cause of action. See Zimmerman v.
1272Office of Ins. Reg. , 944 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
12841 1 . Res judicata and collateral estoppel serve to limit
1295litigation by determining for all time an issue that ha s been
1307ful ly and fairly litigated. Trucking Employee s of N orth Jersey
1319Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano , 450 So. 2d 843, 845 (Fla. 1984).
13311 2 . In a challenge to a proposed rule , the issue for
1344determination is often described as whether the rule is an
1354invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, but a
1362proposed rule usually has several parts, each of which is subject
1373to challenge on the same or different grounds of invalidity.
1383Some parts of the rule may be determined to be valid exercises of
1396delegated legislative authority and other parts invalid.
1403Therefore, a rule challenge can reasonably be viewed as a bundle
1414of causes of action, each cause directed to a different part of
1426the proposed rule. Res judicata applies to bar any one of these
1438causes of action, once adj udicated, from being re - litigated
1449between the same parties.
14531 3 . If instead, one views Still - I as involv ing a single
1468cause of action -- whether the rule as initially proposed was
1479invalid -- and the current proceeding as involv ing a different
1490cause of action -- w hether rule 62 - 42.300, as changed, is in valid --
1506then collateral estoppel bars the re - litigation of the factual
1517and legal issues that were previously adjudicated in Still - I .
15291 4 . With regard to the unchanged parts of proposed rule
154162 - 42.300, res judicata o r collateral estoppel bars Petitioner
1552Paul Still from claiming they are invalid.
15591 5 . When res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to bar
1571a partyÓs claims, they also bar the claims of a person in privity
1584with that party, whether connected by contract, o wnership, or
1594other mutual interest. See Thompson v. Haynes , 249 So. 2d 69
1605(Fla. 1st DCA 1971). The Supreme Court of Florida has described
1616privity for purposes of res judicata as the kind of mutual
1627interest that makes one Ðvirtually representedÑ in the pr evious
1637lawsuit. See Stogniew v. McQueen , 656 So. 2d 917, 920 (Fla.
16481995) . See also Massey v. David , 831 So. 2d 226, 232 (Fla 1st
1662DCA 2002)(ÐA person may be bound by a judgment even though not a
1675party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligne d
1689with his interests as to be his virtual representative.Ñ); EEOC
1699v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. , 383 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004),
1710quoted in Cook v. State , 921 So. 2d 631, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA
17232005 ) ( ÐPrivity is a flexible legal term, comprising several
1734different types of relationships and generally applying when a
1743person, although not a party, has his interests adequately
1752represented by someone with the same interests who is a party.Ñ ) .
176516. Paul Still was the virtual represent ative of Kathleen
1775Still in Still - I b ecause her identical claims and interests
1787(regarding the unchanged parts of rule 62 - 42.300) were adequately
1798represented by Paul Still , and th ose claims and interests were
1809heard and determined . 1/ Therefore, Kathleen Still should also be
1820barred from challen ging the unchanged parts of proposed rule
183062 - 42.300.
18331 7 . Petitioners contend that section 120.56(2)(a), Florida
1842Statutes, affords Kathleen Still the right to challenge the
1851entirety of rule 62 - 42.300 on the same grounds that were rejected
1864in Still - I, becau se she has recently applied to the District for
1878a consumptive use permit. Section 120.56(2)(a) states, in part:
1887A person who is substantially affected by a
1895change in the proposed rule may seek a
1903determination of the validity of such
1909change. A person who is not substantially
1916affected by the proposed rule as initially
1923noticed, but who is substantially affected by
1930the rule as a result of a change, may
1939challenge any provision of the rule and is
1947not limited to challenging the change to the
1955proposed rule.
195718. First, Kathleen Still is not substantially affected as
1966a result of the changes to the rule because the rule only adds
1979clarification about how the minimum flow s were derived. The
1989changes do not affect the minimum flows or the Supplemental
1999Regulatory Meas ures. Kathleen Still ha s standing to argue that
2010the changes adversely affect her , but the plain language of the
2021changes and the undisputed facts demonstrate that the changes do
2031not substantially affect her . Therefore, section 120.56(2)(a)
2039does not provid e Kathleen Still a means to challenge the rule as
2052initially noticed.
205419. Second, Kathleen Still is estopped to challenge the
2063unchanged p arts of the rule. Her interests were adequately
2073represented by Paul Still in Still - I. She stands in the same
2086position as Paul Still, a person substantially affected by the
2096rule as initially proposed. The permit application added to
2105Kathleen StillÓs substantial interests for purposes of standing,
2113but standing is not the issue; the issue is whether Kathleen
2124Still may chal lenge the unchanged parts of the proposed rule.
2135She is estopped from doing so.
214120 . The change s to the rule were added by the Department to
2155cure the vagueness determined in the Final Order in Still - I.
2167Vagueness requires a determination that the rule forbids or
2176requires the performance of an act in terms that are so vague
2188that persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and
2199differ as to its application. S W . Fla. Water. M gmt. Dist. v .
2214Charlotte Cnty. , 774 So. 2d 903, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001 ).
222621. Petitioners are not estopped to present their claim
2235that the changes do not cure the vagueness, but they failed to
2247prove their claim. The rule is not vague.
22552 2 . The period of record that will be used to determine in
2269the future whether the minimum flows have been achieved is not
2280stated in the rule, but it can be determined later as part of the
2294phase 2 re - evaluation of the minimum flows. The period of record
2307must be identified in the rule at that time. Petitioners are not
2319injured by the absence of this information in the rule now.
23302 3 . PetitionersÓ challenges to the SERC also fail. Because
2341the changes to the rule simply add information about how the
2352minimum flows were derived, there are no economic costs
2361associated with the changes. That makes mo ot the debates about
2372whether the lower cost regulatory alternative was timely or
2381whether the SERC covered the wrong time period. All of
2391PetitionersÓ other claims of invalidity directed to the SERC are
2401barred by estoppel.
2404DISPOSITION
2405Based on the fo regoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
2416Law, it is determined that proposed rule 62 - 42.300 is a valid
2429exercise of delegated legislative authority.
2434DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of February , 2015 , in
2444Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
2448S
2449BRAM D. E. CANTER
2453Administrative Law Judge
2456Division of Administrative Hearings
2460The DeSoto Building
24631230 Apalachee Parkway
2466Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
2471(850) 488 - 9675
2475Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
2481www.doah.state.fl.us
2482Filed with the C lerk of the
2489Division of Administrative Hearings
2493this 13th day of February , 2015 .
2500ENDNOTE
25011/ In her own case, Kathleen Still requested that Paul Still
2512appear as her Qualified Representative.
2517COPIES FURNISHED:
2519Paul Edward Still
252214167 Southwest 101st Avenue
2526Starke, Florida 32091
2529(eServed)
2530Kathleen M. Still
253314167 Southwest 101st Avenue
2537Starke, Florida 32091
2540(eServed)
2541Jeffrey Brown, Esquire
2544Department of Environmental Protection
2548Office of General Counsel
2552Mail Station 35
25553900 Commonwealth Bouleva rd
2559Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2564(eServed)
2565Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire
2569Frederick T. Reeves, P.A.
25735709 Tidalwave Drive
2576New Port Richey, Florida 34562
2581(eServed)
2582Edward P. De La Parte, Jr., Esquire
2589De La Parte and Gilbert, P.A.
2595101 East Kennedy Bouleva rd, Suite 2000
2602Post Office Box 2350
2606Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350
2611(eServed)
2612George T. Reeves, Esquire
2616Davis, Schnitker, Reeves and Browning, P.A.
2622Post Office Drawer 652
2626Madison, Florida 32341
2629(eServed)
2630K ris H. Davis, Esquire
2635St. Johns River Water Managemen t District
26424049 Reid Street
2645Palatka, Florida 32178
2648(eServed)
2649Ken Plante, Coordinator
2652Joint Administrative Procedure Committee
2656Room 680, Pepper Building
2660111 West Madison Street
2664Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400
2669(eServed)
2670Ernest Reddick, Chief
2673Alexandra Nam
2675Department of State
2678R.A. Gray Building
2681500 South Bronough Street
2685Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0250
2690(eServed)
2691Jonathan P. Steverson, Secretary
2695Department of Environmental Protection
2699Office of General Counsel
2703Mail Station 35
27063900 Commonwealth Boulevar d
2710Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2715(eServed)
2716Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel
2721Department of Environmental Protection
2725Office of General Counsel
2729Mail Station 35
27323900 Commonwealth Boulevard
2735Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2740(eServed)
2741NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
2747A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled
2759to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes.
2768Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate
2778Procedure. Such proceedings are commenc ed by filing the original
2788notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the
2798Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition
2807of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice,
2819accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk
2830of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where
2841the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or
2852as otherwise provided by law.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 02/06/2015
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2015
- Proceedings: Amended Order (denying request for Paul Still to appear as qualified representative for Petitioner).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2015
- Proceedings: Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District's Notie of Service of Order Dated February 4, 2015, on Petitioner, Kathleen Still filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2015
- Proceedings: Order (denying request for Paul Still to appear as qualified representative for Petitioner).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/03/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response in Opposition to Petitioner, (Kathleen Still's) Request to be Represented by Qualified Representative filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/29/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Request to be Represented by a Qualified Representative (filed in Case No. 14-006132RP).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner, Kathleen Still's Response to Respondent's Motion for Final Summary Order ad to Kathleen Still Petition (filed in Case No. 14-006132RP).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/23/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner, Kathleen Still's Response to Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion for Summary Final Order as to Kathleen Still's Petition (filed in Case No. 14-006132RP).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/21/2015
- Proceedings: Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District's Amendment to Motion for Summary Final Order as to Kathleen Still Petition Filed on January 16, 2015 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/21/2015
- Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Final Summary Order as to Kathleen Still Petition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/16/2015
- Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Final Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/16/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order and in Support of the Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/16/2015
- Proceedings: Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District's Motion for Summary Final Order as to Kathleen Still Petition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2015
- Proceedings: Order (granting Intervenor's third unopposed third motion for official recognition).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Unopposed Third Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2015
- Proceedings: Order (granting Petitioner's request for additional time to respond to Intervenor's interrogatories).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2015
- Proceedings: Notice of Motion Hearing (Motion hearing set for February 6, 2015; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2015
- Proceedings: Order (granting Intervenor's unopposed second motion for official recognition).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/13/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Unopposed Second Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/12/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Response to Petitioner Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/12/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner Paul Still's Request for an Extension of Time to Respond to Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/12/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's Response to DEP's Motion for Summary Final Order and for Official Recognition and Alternative Motion in Limine filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/09/2015
- Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's Unopposed Motion for Leave to be Treated as Intervenor in DOAH Case No. 14-6132 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/09/2015
- Proceedings: Respondent's Agreed Motion to Extend Time for Response to Petitioner's Motion for Final Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/08/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Amended Unopposed First Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/08/2015
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Unopposed First Motion for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/06/2015
- Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 14-5658RP and 14-6132RP)).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/31/2014
- Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order and for Official Recognition and Alternative Motion in Limine filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/31/2014
- Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing (motion hearing set for January 6, 2015; 1:00 p.m.).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/23/2014
- Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's Response to Petitioner's Response to Order to Show Cause Directed to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/23/2014
- Proceedings: Intervenor Suwannee River Water Management District's Reply to Petitioner Paul Still's Response to Order to Show Cause Directed to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/23/2014
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Reply to Petitioner's Show Cause Response filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/23/2014
- Proceedings: (Respondent's) Verified Motion to Allow Filing Out of Time filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/16/2014
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Show Cause Response to the Doctrine of Res Judicata filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/15/2014
- Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Directed to the Department of Environmental Protection.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2014
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Suwannee River Water Management District's Amended Objection and Request for Extension of Time (up to and including January 12, 2015) to Respond to Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents to SRWMD filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2014
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Suwannee River Water Management District's Objection to Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production of Documents to SRWMD filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/11/2014
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Paul Still filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/11/2014
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor, Suwannee River Water Management District's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Paul Still filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/10/2014
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by December 16, 2014).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/08/2014
- Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Unopposed Petition to Intervene filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/05/2014
- Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's Unopposed Petition to Intervene filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/05/2014
- Proceedings: Petitioner, Paul Still's First Request for Production od Documents to SRWMD filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/05/2014
- Proceedings: Suwannee River Water Management District's Petition to Intervene filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/03/2014
- Proceedings: (Respondent's) Agreed Motion for Continuance and Suggestion Regarding Related Case filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/02/2014
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 29, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Case Information
- Judge:
- BRAM D. E. CANTER
- Date Filed:
- 11/26/2014
- Date Assignment:
- 12/09/2014
- Last Docket Entry:
- 02/13/2015
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Department of Environmental Protection
- Suffix:
- RP
Counsels
-
Jeffrey Brown, Esquire
Address of Record -
Kris H. Davis, Esquire
Address of Record -
Edward P. De La Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Nicolas Q. Porter, Esquire
Address of Record -
Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire
Address of Record -
George T. Reeves, Esquire
Address of Record -
Kathleen M. Still
Address of Record -
Paul Edward Still
Address of Record -
Edward P de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Edward P de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Frederick T Reeves, Esquire
Address of Record