14-005658RP Paul Still vs. Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Friday, February 13, 2015.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners are estopped to challenge the unchanged portions of the rule and failed to prove that the changed portions of the rule are vague.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2015
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2015
Proceedings: Summary Final Order. CASE CLOSED.
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: Notice to Parties.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2015
Proceedings: Revised Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order 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: (Respondent's) Response Regarding Scheduling filed.
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: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
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: Order (granting motion for official recognition).
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
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: 01/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Petition to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 01/06/2015
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 14-5658RP and 14-6132RP)).
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2015
Proceedings: Order Cancelling Telephone Hearing.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
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: 12/23/2014
Proceedings: Department's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2014
Proceedings: Department's Amended Response to Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2014
Proceedings: Department's Response to Scheduling Order 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 Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2014
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Directed to the Department of Environmental Protection.
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2014
Proceedings: Order (on Respondent's request for extension of time).
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: Notice of Appearance (Kris H. Davis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by December 16, 2014).
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Petitions to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: St. Johns River Water Management District's Unopposed Petition to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (George Reeves) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: North Florida Utility Coordinating Group's Unopposed Petition to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Edward de la Parte, Jr.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Nicolas Porter) 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: 12/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 29, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2014
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2014
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2014
Proceedings: Petition to Challenge Rule filed.

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

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):