May 11, 1993ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL LAW
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE LAW
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dear Cecile:
MICHAEL WM. MORELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
310 WEST COLLEGE AVENUE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
(904) 425 8300
(904) 425 8301 FACSIMILE
May 11, 1993
ALSO ADMITTED IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Cecile I. Ross, Esquire
South Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box 24680
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 -4680
Re: Application #921204 -10; Application for Consumptive Use
Permit submitted by Okeechobee Beach Water Association,
Inc. for Okeechobee and Glades Counties
I represent the City of Okeechobee. The purpose of this
letter is to inquire, as is provided for in Rule 40E- 1.511(6),
Florida Administrative Code, if proposed or final agency action has
occurred with regard to: (1) whether the District has notified
interested persons or published a notice of intent to issue a
consumptive use permit to Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc.
(OBWA) the in the above referenced matter, or (2) whether the
District intends to recognize that OBWA may satisfy permit review
criteria 3.1.1.1.5 by submitting a copy of its franchise agreement
with Okeechobee County and County Ordinance No. 93 -5, in lieu of
submitting documentation that OBWA has resolved its competing
service area claim directly with the City.
In the event that agency action has not occurred, the City
hereby requests that the District: (A) consider the comments made
in this letter as is provided for in Rule 40E- 1.603(5), F.A.C.; (B)
not recognize that OBWA may satisfy permit review criteria
3.1.1.1.5 by submitting a copy of its franchise agreement with
Okeechobee County as documentation that OBWA has resolved its
service area conflict with the City of Okeechobee; (C) promptly
apprise me of the status of when agency action with regard to (1)
and (2) in paragraph one above will occur; and (D) in the event
that the district does decide to accept a copy of OBWA's franchise
agreement with the County and County Ordinance No. 93 -5 as
documentation that the applicant has resolved its service area
conflict with the City, provide the City of Okeechobee with notice
and a clear point of entry to request a formal hearing pursuant to
Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge such proposed
agency action prior to publication by the District of a notice of
intent to issue the permit to OBWA.
Cecile I. Ross
May 11, 1993
Page Two
The City is particularly concerned that the District has had
discussions with representatives of OBWA in which the District may
have represented that the applicant may satisfy permit review
criteria 3.1.1.1.5 by submitting a copy of a local government water
and sewer franchise in lieu of submitting documentation that the
applicant has resolved its competing service area claim directly
with the City of Okeechobee. The City believes that permit review
criteria 3.1.1.1.5 may only be satisfied by the submission of
documentation that the conflicting service area claim has been
"resolved by the involved parties" namely the City of Okeechobee
and OBWA.
The City's concerns regarding this matter are based in part
upon the following facts. Permit review criteria 3.1.1.1.5
contained in the District's Basis of Review of Water Use Permit
Applications provides in pertinent part:
3.1.1.1.5 Conflicting Service Territories Conflicting
service area claims between...[the] applicant and an
unregulated water service area, must be resolved by the
involved parties.
The City of Okeechobee and OBWA operate in an unregulated
water service area. In 1984, Okeechobee County adopted Ordinance
No. 84 -4 which authorized the Board of County Commissioners to
regulate utilities in Okeechobee County. (A copy of Ordinance No.
84 -4 is enclosed with this letter as Attachment #1 for your
convenience.) Section 4 of Ordinance No. 84 -4 expressly provides
that "systems owned, operated, managed or controlled by
governmental agencies" (i.e.- the City) and "nonprofit
corporations, associations, or cooperatives providing service
solely to members who own and control such nonprofit corporations,
associations or cooperatives" (i.e.- OBWA) are not subject to
regulation by the ordinance as utilities. The "involved parties"
under criteria 3.1.1.1.5 in this application are the City of
Okeechobee and OBWA. They both operate in an unregulated water
service area.
On April 26, 1993, I provided you with a copy of City of
Okeechobee Ordinance No. 488. The City's ordinance, which was
enacted in 1983, adopted a legal description for its water and
sewer service area pursuant to Chapter 180, Florida Statutes. The
service area requested by OBWA in its original application and
subsequent supplemental submissions conflicts with the City of
Okeechobee's Chapter 180 service area.
Cecile I. Ross
May 11, 1993
Page Three
On December 28, 1992, the District informed OBWA by letter
that it had determined OBWA's application to be incomplete. (A
copy of the District's December 28, 1992 letter to OBWA is enclosed
with this letter as Attachment #2 for your convenience). The
District's letter stated that additional information would be
necessary to continue the review process including documentation
that OBWA:
[M]ust have legal control over the activities for which
they desire a permit. More specifically, the following
sections will need to be addressed...3.1.1.1.5
Conflicting Service Territories...The "Agreement" for
bulk sale of water between the City of Okeechobee and the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association expires in October,
1994. Please provide documentation of legal control for
the requested service area."
On February 11, 1993, OBWA supplemented its original
application when it submitted a copy of its Articles of
Incorporation as documentation of the legal control of the service
area. Exhibit 2 included with OBWA's February llth submission also
contains a letter from OBWA to its engineers dated January 18, 1993
in which the Association denies it is requesting a service area,
denies the existence of any service area conflict with the City and
at the same time states that OBWA intends to supply water beyond
the service area requested in its original application:
We are not requesting a service area. We will supply
water to the existing service area and any expansion will
be in an area that can be reasonably served within a
projected ten (10) year time frame.
We are not aware of any claims of conflicts between OBWA
service area and any other water system.
(A copy of OBWA's letter to its engineers which was dated January
18, 1993 and is included in Exhibit 2 to the Association's February
llth submittal is enclosed with this letter as Attachment #3 for
your convenience.)
On March 12, 1993, the District corresponded with OBWA a
second time concerning the unresolved question of the service area
conflict with the City. The March 12th letter referred to District
records which "indicate an overlap between the City of Okeechobee's
permitted service area and OBWA's] requested service area." (A
copy of the District's March 12, 1993 letter to OBWA is enclosed
with this letter as Attachment #4 for your convenience.) The
District's March 12th letter also included the following statement:
Cecile I. Ross
May 11, 1993
Page Four
Also discussed in the meeting was submittal of a copy of
a local government franchise, as documentation of service
area. Another alternative, to resolve any potential
dispute would be to get confirmation from the City of
Okeechobee that there is no conflicting service
territory.
On April 29, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners of
Okeechobee County adopted Ordinance No. 93 -5 which purports to
grant a franchise to OBWA. (A copy of Ordinance No. 93 -5 is
enclosed as Attachment #5 for your convenience.) Section 2.01 of
the ordinance, purports to grant a right, privilege or franchise to
OBWA for the purposes of operating a water and sewer system and
supplying water, sewer service or reuse water to persons and
corporations "within and beyond" the limits of a service area
defined and described in Appendix B attached to the ordinance.
The City believes that its substantial and legally
recognizable interests under Chapters 120, 180 and 373, Florida
Statutes, as well as its interests under District rules, criteria
and policies, including those rules and criteria contained in
Chapter 40E -2 and Rule 40E- 1.511, Florida Administrative Code,
would be affected by any determination of the District which
recognized that OBWA may satisfy permit review criteria 3.1.1.1.5
by submitting a copy of its franchise agreement with Okeechobee
County and County Ordinance No. 93 -5, in lieu of submitting
documentation that OBWA has resolved its competing service area
claim directly with the City. The City further believes that the
plain language of the permit criteria requires that OBWA should be
made to resolve its service area conflict directly with the City of
Okeechobee and cannot do so through a franchise agreement with
Okeechobee County.
The City, and not the County, is the "involved party" referred
to in permit review criteria 3.1.1.1.5. The District's December
28, 1993 correspondence to OBWA was consistent with the plain
meaning of the permit review criteria in that the letter recognized
that the City's contract with OBWA would be expiring and that OBWA
would need to provide documentation of legal control for the
requested service area after October of 1994.
In addition to not being the "involved party Okeechobee
County does not possess the authority to resolve the service area
conflict between OBWA and the City. Under the express terms of the
County's own utility regulation ordinance, the County does not even
purport to have jurisdiction to regulate either OBWA or the City as
a utility. Therefore, notwithstanding the purported franchise
ordinance, the County does not possess the requisite legal and
regulatory authority necessary to resolve the service area conflict
between OBWA and the City because both OBWA and the City are exempt
Cecile I. Ross
May 11, 1993
Page Five
from County Ordinance No. 84 -4. The "involved parties" are in
essence operating in an unregulated water service area. Even
assuming, although not agreeing, that the County does have the
legal authority to regulate OBWA and the City, and that the County
had in place a properly adopted regulatory scheme to exercise such
authority, the express terms of the County's franchise ordinance
and the agreement with OBWA may have enlarged the service area
conflict issue which exists between the City and OBWA to the extent
that Section 2.01 of the ordinance purports to grant OBWA the right
to supply water "within and beyond" the limits of the service area.
Therefore, Ordinance No. 93 -5 could potentially be interpreted to
grant OBWA the authority to operate "beyond" the service area
described in Appendix B attached to the ordinance and the service
area as requested by OBWA in its application and subsequent
submissions to the District. The District should not recognize the
franchise agreement because the language of the ordinance itself
facially fails to resolve the conflict between the involved
parties.
Even though subsequent actions of the District in publishing
a notice of intent to issue the permit may well affect the
substantial interests of the City of Okeechobee, at this time the
City has not made a decision to challenge OBWA's application for a
permit. At a special meeting of the City Council held on April 29,
1993, a motion was made and passed unanimously that the City state
it will not arbitrarily cut off OBWA's water at the end of their
contract with the City in October of 1994 but will negotiate a
price and how long they need it to continue.
At this time, the City is primarily concerned with the
representation which the District may have made in its letter of
March 12, 1993 to OBWA. From that letter it may be inferred that
the applicant will be allowed by the District to satisfy permit
review criteria 3.1.1.1.5 by submitting a copy of a local
government water and sewer franchise in lieu of submitting
documentation that the applicant has resolved its competing service
area claim directly with the City of Okeechobee. The City merely
wants to protect its interest as an "involved party" under the
District's permit review criteria. The City believes that the
second alternative provided in the March 12th letter, that which
requires confirmation from the City of Okeechobee that the conflict
has been resolved, is the only permissible interpretation of permit
criteria 3.1.1.1.5 which should be contenanced by the District in
reviewing OBWA's application.
Cecile I. Ross
May 11, 1993
Page Six
The City notes that the District's new Rule 40E.1.511(5),
F.A.C., provides that in cases where a project is determined to be
of heightened public concern or where there is a likelihood of a
request for administrative hearing, the District shall publish
notice of proposed agency action in the Florida Administrative
Weekly or newspapers of general circulation in the area affected by
such decisions as required by Chapter 50, Florida Statutes, and
shall post notice and mail copies of its notice to applicants and
interested groups. The City respectfully suggests that this is
such a case.
Therefore, the City trusts that in the event that the District
does decide to accept a copy of OBWA's franchise agreement with the
County and County Ordinance No. 93 -5 as documentation that the
applicant has resolved its service area conflict with the City, the
District will provide the City of Okeechobee with notice and a
clear point of entry to request a formal hearing pursuant to
Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge such proposed
agency action prior to publication by the District of a notice of
intent to issue the permit to OBWA.
If I may answer any questions or provide an further
information for the District's consideration, please do not
hesitate to call.
With best personal regards,
Sincerely,
MWM mm
Enclosures
cc: John Cook, City Attorney
Bill Reese, Reese Macon Associates
6 1mio.Q 114,08?
Michael Wm. Morell
ORDI.NCE NO. 84 -4
AN ORDINANCE OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, AUTHORIZING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REGULATE UTILITIES;
DEFINING UTILTIES; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING
FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ADJUSTING OR CHANGING RATES OF
UTILITIES BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners is hereby
authorized to regulate utilities in the unincorporated areas
of Okeechobee County as provided within this Ordinance.
Section 2. The regulation of utilities is declared to
be in the public interest, and this ordinance is an exercise
of the police power of Okeechobee County for the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare. The provisions of
this ordinance shall be liberally construed for the accomp-
lishment of this purpose.
Section 3. "Utility" means water or sewer utility and
includes every person, lessee, trustee or receiver owning,
operating, managing, or controlling a system, or proposing
construction of a system, who is providing, or proposes to
provide, water or sewer service to the public for compensation.
Section 4. Exemptions:
The following are not subject to regulation by this
Ordinance as a utility:
r.
(1) The sale, distribution or furnishing f bo(tied
:J nri
water; z
(2) Systems owned, operated, managed or Tontra3.ed
by governmental agencies;
(3) Manufacturing, mining, or agricultural
operations providing service solely in connection
with their operations;
(4) Establishments such as hotels, motels, mobile
home parks or recreational vehicle parks
providing services solely in connection with
service to their guests.
ATTACHMENT 11
(5) Systems d'rSigned to serve or serving 100
persons or less; and
(6) Nonprofit corporations, associations, or
cooperatives providing service solely to
members who own and control such nonprofit
corporations, associations or cooperatives.
Section 5. All utilities currently existing and
functioning at the effective date of this Ordinance are
recognized as utilities by the Board of County Commissioners
as utilities subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. The Board 'of County Commissioners is
hereby authorized to establish, adjust or change the rates
of any utility subject to the provisions of this Ordinance
according to the following procedure:
(1) Upon the request of the Owner, or upon
application of at least twenty -five percent
(257) of the customers of the utility, or
upon its own motion, the Board of County
Commissioners may establish, adjust or change
rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory,
and not unjustly discriminatory. In all such
proceedings, the Commission shall consider the
value and quality of the service and the cost
of providing the service, which shall include,
but not be limited to, debt interest, the
utility's requirements for working capital,
maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating
expenses incurred in the operation of all
property used and useful in the public service,
and a fair return on the utility's original
investment in property required by duly
authorized governmental authority to be
constructed in the public interest within a
reasonable time in the future, not to exceed
24 months.
(2) The application shall be filed with the Board
together with the required fees. Uniform fees
shall be set by resolution by the Board of
County Commissioners. Within 60 days there-
after the Board shall schedule a hearing on the
application, said hearing shall be held not more
than 90 days after the filing of the application.
(3) Applications for the modification or establish-
ment of rates shall be accompanied by such
information upon such forms as the Board shall
determine is necessary to fix rates which are
just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unjustly
discriminatory.
(4) The Board shall cause notice to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the
County, that an application for the establish-
ment or modification of rates, as the case may
be, has been filed with the Board. The notice
shall specify the applicant and the meeting date
and place designated by the Board for considera-
tion of the application. The notice shall be
given at least 10 days prior to the designated
meeting date. It shall be the duty of the
applicant to furnish written notice to all
customers of the affected utility by certified
mail, and furnish satisfactory proof thereof to
the County.
(5) The Commission shall conduct a public hearing
pursuant to notice and shall, within 10 days
either grant or deny such application, upon such
conditions as the Commission may deem to be in
the public interest. Such grant or denial shall
be in writing and shall be supported by specific
findings.
Section 7. This
Ordinance shall take
filed in the office of the S effect upon being
Secretary of State of Florida in the
manner prescribed by law,
Passed and adopted this
Gloria J. Ford, C erk
Board of County Commissioners
Okeechobee County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
I, THE UNDERSIGM "D Deputy Clerk
of the Circuit Court, 0;c e% :u i County
Florida, DO HEREBY CU(;1 !:''r fl within
and foregoing !s a true :r• i r: r,;.ra cc;ri of
the original as it {gyp .:r• O, a,:!i f1e
in the office Cal
of Okeechobee County, Fio ida.
WITNESS my hand and seal, at Okce-
chobee, Florida this ihe_1. Tii_ y
of aCTn,ER_A D 19t
BY O A J F l U C k, Circu Court n ,e
ZZ. day
e.
of
x______, 1 984.
Sar
Board of rice, Chairman
r o
Boa e d hof County Commissioners
County, Florida
..1 .1
South Florida Water M j zrt ht.b! I
tam dun Club R o a d A.O. Box 14686 Weat P R I m Bsach. l b 1 1 1 1 4 6 0 d 0 T l MB•M00 F L ATA 1 4IL
CON 24 -06
December 28, 1992
Mr. Roger Robinet
Virogroup Missimer Associates bi.._
600 Sandtre• Drive, Suite 101
Lake Park, FL 33403
Dear Mr. Robinet:
SubJect: Application #921204 -10
Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc.
Okeechobee and Glades Counties
On December 4, 1992, the above application was received by the District. After
reviewing the application, it was determined to be incomplete pursuant to Rule
40E- 2.101, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The following information is
necessary to continue the review process:
1. District criteria requires use of the Comprehensive Plans in projecting
future water sypply demands. To assure the demand projections are based on
population projections and per capita day consumption rates reflected in the
Okeechobee and Glades Counties Comprehensive Plans, the following information is
requested:
a) In order to establish consistency between the information on projected
population and the Counties' Comprehensive Plans, the information
regarding existing and projected population and water demand should be
broken down separately for Glades and Okeechobee Counties.
b).As an alternative to a) above, you may choose, to include a letter from
the Planning Directors of the two affected coultties which confirms the
consistencies between the information provided and the County
Comprehensive Plans.
c) P,lease.provide the Counties' adopted Level of Service Standards (LOSs)
for potable water use, as per the Comprehensive Plans.
d)' Please provide the rate of consumption of commercial users Within the
requested service area and address how this information was used in making
future demand projections.
ATTACHMENT 12
Gorsntlrtt Seal!'
Allen MllkdQe. Chairman Miami James E. Nail Fort Laudeniale Leah Ci. ached West Palm amaeb Tiltard C. Creel. Enecutl.. Direct*
Valerie Lloyd. Viee•Cbairman Naslea Annie Bet.eeoun Mend Frank Wtflanteon. Jr. Oaeeehehea nouns. ltMaevioar.0.vew F.dCu
Ken Adams West Palm death Franklin B. Mann Fort My. s Lome K. penes Fart Laydedale
Application 0921204 -10
Okeechobee Beach Water Assoc., Inc.
December 28, 1992
Page 2 of 3
2. As required in Permit Information Manual, Volume II1 Basis of Review (BOR)
section 3.1.1, Control Over Agtivlties Applicants must have legal control over
the activities for which they desire a permit. More specifically, the following
sections will need to be addressed:
3.1.1.1.1 Public Service Commission (PSC) Territory Applicants regulated
by the PSC must submit a copy of the PSC certification describing the
service area.
3.1.1.1.4 Unregulated Service Territory Applicants not regulated by
either the PSC or local government must confine their service area to that
which can reasonably be served within a projected ten year time frame.
3.1.1.1.5 Conflicting Service Territories Conflicting service area
claims between applicants, or between applicant and an unregulated water
service area, must be resolved by the involved parties.
The "Agreement" for bulk sale of water between the City. of Okeechobee and the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association expires in October, 1994. Please provide
documentation of legal control for the requested service area.
3. The modelling submitted as reasonable assurances that off -site wetland areas
will not be adversely impacted has aspects which are not consistent with Current
District requirements. Please address the following comments and provide the
appropriate information:
a) The model simulates layer one as confined. Although there may' be some
local confinement, there is inadequate data to show that confinement is
continuous over the areal extent of the influence of the proposed
wellfleld. The revised modelling should simulate layer one as unconfined
with a bottom elevation and an appropriate hydraulic conductivity.
b) The model simulates pumpage of 1.0 MGD for 90 days with no''recharge.
The revised modelling should incorporate the requested maximum daily
allocation of 1.5 MOD. If the no recharge scenario doesn.'t rovide
assurances that the wetland area will not be adversely impacted, an
alternative approach would be to incorporate 2-in -10 year
rainfall, as recharge.
c) The model simulates withdrawals from six 'wells. The application
requests the use of one existing and six proposed wells. Therevised
modelling should incorporate withdrawals from all seven wells.
d) Please provide the input files used in the revised modelling, so
District Staff can run the model simulation.
Application 1921204.10
Okeechobee Beach Water Assoc., Inc.
December 28, 1992
Page 3 of 3
4. •The Table A (Description of Wells) which was submitted With the appPlic'ition
is missing necessary information. Please complete the ;sections for which
information is currently available. At a minimum, please provide the estimated
pump capacities for the wells.
5. As required in Permit Information Manual, Volume III, Basis of Review (BOR)
section 3.2.1.1.8, Public Health and Water Quality Applicants must request
other governmental agencies responsible for public health evaluate the
application for impacts on public health. Please provide a copy of the
application to the Okeechobee County Public Health Unit for their review. Please
submit a copy of their comments to the District.
P1aas• be advised, the Department of Environmental Regulation(DER) has indicetsd
in their December 11, 1992 letter that the DER permitted plant capacity will be
restricted to the maximum daily allocation approved by the District's Governing
Board.
When the above information is received, we will resume processing the
application. Please use the enclosed transmittal form when submitting your
response, and include six (6) copies of the response. In accordance with idle
40E 1.603(5), FAC, a response Is required within 90 days of receipt of the letter
requesting additional information or the application may be processed for denial
if not withdrewa by.the applicant.
Should you have any questions regarding this application, please call Tom Colios
at 800 432 2045 ext. 6244, or 407 6BI 6944. Thank you for your cooperation; in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Colios
Sr. Scientific Technician
Water Use Division
Regul ati on 'Department
to
Enclosures
c: Utilities Director, City of Okeechobee
January 18, 1993
OECHOBEE BEACH WATill ASSOCIATION, INC.
8840 Highwa West
Okeechobee, Florida 34974 -9787
813- 763 -3793 FAX 813- 467 -4335
Serving Customers in Okeechobee And Glades County
Mr. Roger Robinet
Missimer Associates, Inc.
600 Sandtree Drive
Suite 101
Lake Park, Florida 33403
Dear Mr. Robinet:
I have reviewed the letter from South Florida Water Management
District dated December 28, 1992 and submit the following
information.
1. Copies of specific pages from the Glades County Comprehensive
Plan.
A. Population increase of 5.9%. See Page I -12.
B. 1.74 persons per household. See Page I -14.
C. Buckhead population estimates. See Page I -15.
D. Water consumption of 125 gallons per person per day. See
Pages IV -1 and IV -4.
E. Projected water needs for Buckhead Ridge. See Page IV -8.
2. Copies of specific pages from the Okeechobee County
Comprehensive Plan.
A. Population projections for Okeechobee County.
See Page I1I -19
B. Estimated number per household 2.72 decreasing to 2.62.
See Page III -22.
C. Water Level of service for OBWA service area 110 gpcpd
See Page IV -28.
D. OBWA service are population projections. See Page IV -33.
E. OBWA service area water use projections. See Page IV -34.
3. Current Water Use for Glades County:
A. Residential
1,081 accounts (meters)
2,344 gallons per account per month (average)
78 gallons per account per day (average)
44.83 gallons per person per day (average)
Mr. Roger RobiAlk
January 18, 1993
Page 2
B. Commercial
18 accounts (meters)
23,572 gallons per account per month (average)
786 gallons per account per day (average)
C. Combined Residential and Commercial
1,099 accounts (average)
2,692 gallons per account per month (average)
89.73 gallons per account per day (average)
4. Current Water Use for Okeechobee County:
A. Residential
1,944 accounts (meters)
2,904 gallons per account per month (average)
96.81 gallons per account per day (average)
44.41 gallons per person per day (average)
B. Commercial
159 accounts (meters)
32,847 gallons per account per month (average)
1,095 gallons per account per day (average)
C. Combined Residential and Commercial
2,103 accounts (meters)
5,168 gallons per account per month (average)
172 gallons per account per day (average)
5. Analysis of Total Water Pumped into System:
3,202 accounts (meters)
565,397 gallons per day (average)
176.5 gallons per account per day (average)
6. Projected Population and Water. Use:
See Attached Table
I have calculated the data on the table using the information
above.
7. The rate of consumption of commercial users is listed above.
The water use projections includes the water used by
residential, commercial and system loss.
Mr. Roger Robi
January 18, 1993
Page 3
8. Number 2 of the SFWMD letter requests documentation of legal
control for the requested service area.
We are not requesting a service area. We will supply water to
the existing service area and any expansion will be in an area
that can be reasonably served within a projected ten (10) year
time frame.
We are attaching a copy of the Articles of Incorporation as
documentation of the legal control of the service area.
We are not aware of any claims of conflicts between OBWA
service area and any other water system.
Please call if we need to discuss this matter and let me know if
you need any additional information.
Yours Truly,
cA'c
L. C. Fortner,
Superintendent
LCF /pdv
Enc.
CON 24 -06
March 12, 1993
a
Nttm Chaineme M4e►1
Valerie WO, CMhraarl V.tiele•.
lien •WAnn. Wire Paine 11uw•h
South Florida Water Management District
33111 Gun Club Road P.O. Sox 84680 Writ Paint Basch. FL 31418.4680 140116968900 FL WATS 1.830 432 3045
Ms. Suzanne Harper
ViroCrou Inc. Missimsr Division
600 Sandtree Drive, Suite 101
Lake Park, FL 33403
Dear Ks. Harper:
Sub1ect: Application 0921204 -10
Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc.
Okeechobee and H1ad Counties
On February 12, 1993, a response to the request for additional information for
the above application was received by the District. A review of the response
indicates that additional information will be required in order to complete the
evaluation, pursuant to Rule 40E 1.603, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
Please answer the unresolved question.
Currently, District records indicate an overlap between the City of Okeechobee's
permitted service area and Okeechobee Beach Water Association's requested service
area. As discussed in the meeting at the District on March 1, 1993, the Public
Service Commission (PSC) does not regulate utilities in Okeechobee County. A
representative from PSC indicates Okeechobee County has Jurisdiction to certify
private water public utilities. Also discussed in the meeting was submittal of
a copy of a local government franchise, as documentation of service area.
Another alternative, to resolve any potential dispute would be to get
confirmation from the City of Okeechobee that there is no conflicting service
territory.
1. As required in Permit Information Manual, Volume III, Basis of Review (BOR)
section 3.1.1, Control Over Activities Applicants must have legal control over
'the activities for which they desire a permit. More specifically, the following
section will need to be addressed:
3.1.1.1.6 Conflicting Service Territories Conflicting service area
claims between applicants, or between applicant and an unregulated water
service area, gust be resolved by the involved parties.
The "Agreement" for bulk sale of water between the City of Okeechobee and the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association expires In October, 1994. Please provide
documentation of legal control for the requested service area.
James h V,►N Foe Larierdele Leek *hall West Palo Resell
Awns. &mecum,' Miami Frank Wi44aw4Jr. t)kewtwirw
ymekfin 8 M.enn I'.+Neere► F.uyrnu K. Prtw run Leudrnlakt
ATTACHHENT #4
TWnd C. Creel. Y .v.i a Uinswr
Tlrewealt NaeViwx.Ur' wry F.wnwvs Mem.?
Application #921204 -10
Okeechobee Beach Water Assoc Inc.
March 12, 1993
Page 2 of 2
In accordance with Rule 40E- 1.603(5), FAC, a response is required within 30 days
of receipt of the letter requesting additional information or the application may
be processed for denial if not withdrawn by the applicant. Should you have any
questions regarding this application, please call Tom Colios at 800- 432 -2045
ext.6944, or 407- 687 -6944. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
64
Thomas Coiios
Sr. Scientific Technician
Water Use Division
Regulation Department
tc
Enclosures
c: Utilities Director, City of Okeechobee
William 0. Reese, P.E.
John J. Drago, City Administrator
Burton C. Conner, P.A.
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE,
vs.
Petitioner,
OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER
ASSOCIATION, INC., and
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT,
Respondents.
1
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CASE NO.: 93 -5505
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE'S RESPONSE TO
OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION, INC.'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner, City of Okeechobee "City through its
undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 40E- 1.524, Florida
Administrative Code, hereby files this Response to Respondent
Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc.'s "OBWA Motion to
Dismiss and states:
1. The Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by
the City in this cause does adequately set forth and demonstrate an
injury in fact of sufficient immediacy that is within the scope of
the South Florida Water Management District's "District water
use permitting process under Chapter 373, Florida Statues.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
1. The City does not dispute OBWA's statement of the law with
regard to standing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
However, the City does dispute OBWA's assertions that the City has
not demonstrated an injury in fact of sufficient immediacy that is
within the zone of interest which this proceeding is designed to
protect.
2. It is undisputed that this proceeding is to determine
OBWA's entitlement to the issuance of a water use permit under
Section 373.223, Florida Statutes Pursuant to Subsection
373.223(1):
(1) To obtain a permit pursuant to the provisions of
this chapter, the applicant must establish that the
proposed use of water:
(a) Is a reasonable- beneficial use as defined
in Section 373.019(4):
(b) Will not interfere with any presently
existing legal use of water; and
(c) Is consistent with the public interest.
3. Subsection 373.223(1), therefore, defines the scope of
this proceeding relative to OBWA's entitlement to the subject
permit. Under the statutory authority of Section 373.223, the
District has adopted rules to implement and further explicate these
general permitting criteria. Specifically, the District has adopt-
ed Rule 40E- 2.301, Florida Administrative Code, Conditions for
Issuance of Permits (last amended January 4, 1993). Rule 40E -2.301
provides in pertinent part:
(1) In order to obtain a permit under this
chapter, an applicant must give reasonable
assurances that the proposed water use:
2
3
(e) is otherwise a reasonable- beneficial use
as defined in Subsection 373.019(4),
Florida Statutes, and Rule 17- 40.040,
(f) will not interfere with presently
existing legal uses,
(i) is consistent with Sections 373.016,
373.036, Florida Statutes, Rules 17-
40.001, 17- 40.030, 17- 40.040 and
otherwise in accordance with the public
interest.
4. Accordingly, to have standing, the City must suffer an
injury that falls within the scope of Subsection 373.223(1) as
explicated in Rule 40E- 2.301. As set forth in its Petition, the
City's injury falls within all three paragraphs of Subsection
373.223(1) (i.e. Paragraphs 373.223(1)(a), (b) and (c)) and the
provisions of Rule 40E- 2.301.
Interference with Presently Existing Legal Use of Water
5. OBWA cites to the case of City of Sunrise v. South Florida
Water Management District, 615 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) to
support its position that the City does not have standing to pursue
this action. Assuming initially that that case was correctly
decided, OBWA overlooks one very basic difference in the facts of
that case versus the facts of the instant case. In the City of
Sunrise case, the City of Sunrise and the Indian Trace Community
Development District would have been withdrawing water from
different aauifers. The City of Sunrise was withdrawing from the
Biscayne aquifer and Indian Trace was proposing to withdraw from
the Floridan aquifer. In the instant case, both the City and OBWA
would be withdrawing water from the same aauifer. The City of
Sunrise case turned on the essential fact that the two entities
would be withdrawing water from two different water sources and,
therefore, the only disputed issues were related to the economic
injuries suffered by the City of Sunrise. There was no dispute as
to the impact on the water resource.
6. It is undisputed that in the instant case both the City
and OBWA would be withdrawing water from the surficial aquifer.
The City is currently withdrawing water from the surficial aquifer
as set forth in the City's Water Use Permit No. 47- 00004 -W,
Condition No. 2 of the Limiting Conditions (copy attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference). OBWA is proposing to
withdraw water from the same surficial aquifer as set forth in the
District's Staff Report for Application No. 921204 -10 page 2, Staff
Recommendations (copy attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated by reference).
7. Since both the City and OBWA will be withdrawing water
from the same source, there is a significant potential that the
issuance of the permit to OBWA will impinge on the City's ability
to provide water to its customers under its current permit and will
thereby interfere with the City's presently existing use of water
4
in contravention of Subsection 373.223(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and
Rule 40E- 2.301(1)(f).
8. Furthermore, the issuance of the permit to OBWA will have
the effect of reducing the City's current allocation for withdraw-
ing water allowed under its permit, thereby further interfering
with the City's presently existing legal use of water. While argu-
ing that this allegation is groundless and not sufficient to confer
standing on the City, OBWA acknowledges in Paragraph 4 of its
Motion to Dismiss that the District has the authority to institute
separate proceedings to revoke or modify the City's permit. This
acknowledgement by OBWA is supported by Rule 40E- 2.331(1) which
allows the Executive Director of the District to apply to the Dis-
trict's Governing Board for approval of any modification of an un-
expired permitted use pursuant to section 373.239, F. S. Section
373.239(2)(b) allows a modification if the "proposed modification
would result in a more efficient utilization of water than is
possible under the existing permit." Clearly, the District does
have the authority to reduce the City's allocation under its exist-
ing permit. In addition, the letter from Tilford Creel attached to
OBWA's Motion to Dismiss as Exhibit A, confirms that even if the
City's allocation is not reduced before the existing permit ex-
pires, the City's permit will, in fact, be subject to modification
at the time of renewal. Such a modification would be based on the
City's demonstrated demands at that time which will clearly be
affected by the withdrawal of water by OBWA under its proposed
permit.
5
9. There is no question that the issuance of the permit to
OBWA will either directly (through withdrawal of water from the
same water source as the City is currently using) or indirectly
(through the reduction of the City's water use allocation by the
District) interfere with the City's presently existing legal use of
water. The City will clearly suffer an injury in fact of
sufficient immediacy which is within the scope of the District's
water use permitting authority under Section 373.223.
Disputed Service Area
10. OBWA alleges that the issue of the overlapping service
areas is not a matter which falls within the scope of the
District's authority to address under Chapter 373. OBWA's argument
misses one very significant point. That is that the District's own
rules require the resolution of service area disputes before a
water use permit can be issued.
11. Section 3.1.1 of the District's Basis of Review for Water
Use Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management,
District January, 1993 "Basis of Review requires that
"applicants must have legal control over the activities for
which they desire a permit. This includes service areas for public
water supply (Emphasis added.) A copy of the pertinent
portion of the Basis of Review is attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
12. In addition, Section 3.1.1.1.5 of the Basis of Review
requires that "conflicting service area claims between Applicants,
or between Applicants and an unregulated water service area, must
6
be resolved by the involved parties." (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, "[U]nresolved disputes will prompt staff to recommend
an allocation based on the non- distuted portions of the ooroiected
service area." (Emphasis added.)
13. The Basis of Review is specifically incorporated by
reference into Chapter 40E -2 by Rule 40E- 2.091(1). It is axiomatic
that by virtue of this incorporation, the Basis of Review and all
of its sections are also deemed to be rules and, as such, have the
full force and effect of law. Palm Beach County National Utility
Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach County Health Debartment, 390 So. 2d 115
(Fla. 4th DCA, 1980); State v. Jenkins, 469 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1985).
Once an agency has adopted a rule, it is bound to follow that rule
until the rule is either repealed or otherwise invalidated.
Decarion v. Martinez, 537 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Gadsden
State Bank v. Lewis, 348 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
14. Neither Section 3.1.1 nor Section 3.1.1.1.5 of the Basis
of Review have been repealed or invalidated. Therefore, the
District has no choice but to follow the dictates of those sections
of the Basis of Review. Under the clear, unambiguous language of
these sections, if a dispute as to service area claims exists
between an applicant and an existing water user, the District has
two choices: it can either withhold the issuance of the permit or
it can issue the permit, but only for the non disputed portions of
the proposed service area. In the instant case, the District has
done neither. Not only is the permit proposed to be issued by the
District to OBWA, but is proposed to be issued for the entire
7
service area requested in spite of the City's conflicting claim to
a portion of OBWA's requested service area.
15. There is ample statutory support in Chapter 373 for
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.1.5. Specifically, Subsection 373.019(4)
and Paragraphs 373.036(2)(b) and (e) evince a clear legislative
intent that water use permitting encompass considerations of the
economic and efficient utilization of water resources. Obviously
this cannot be done if the water providers are fighting over the
areas to be served. In fact, there is only one good reason for
including Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.1.5 in the Basis of Review, and
that is to assure that there is an economic and efficient
utilization of water resources.
16. While the District may not have the authority itself to
resolve conflicting service area claims, it clearly has the
authority and duty to withhold the issuance of the permit until the
conflicting claims have been resolved or, in the alternative, to
issue the permit only for the non disputed portions of the
requested service area.
17. While OBWA may argue that the City of Sunrise case is
controlling on this issue, it is extremely important to note that
the City of Sunrise case did not involve conflicting service area
claims. It was specifically found in that case that the
"geographic region of Indian Trace is not within the service area
of Sunrise." See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community
Development District, 14 FALR 866, 868 (Final Order January 16,
1992). Thus, there is a second essential difference between the
8
instant case and City of Sunrise. It is undisputed that the
instant case involves conflicting claims by OBWA and the City as to
their respective service areas.
18. The District does have the authority, as a result of the
conflicting service area, to withhold OBWA's permit or, in the
alternative, to issue the permit with a reduced allocation.
Therefore, the City, as an entity with a service area claim which
conflicts with the service area claim of OBWA, clearly has an
injury that is within the scope of the District's authority under
Chapter 373.
Public Interest Issues
19. OBWA argues that the City has raised economic and con-
tractual issues which are not within the zone of protection of
Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Fourth
District Court of Appeal in the City of Sunrise case. While nearly
any issue can ultimately be reduced to one of economics, it is
incorrect to characterize the City's concerns as solely economic.
The City's concerns are more properly characterized as public
interest issues.
20. Two of the three statutory conditions for issuance of a
water use permit under Section 373.223 require evaluation of uublic
interest considerations. The City believes that the Fourth
District Court of Appeal in the City of Sunrise decision overlooked
key provisions of Chapter 373, as reflected in the District's
rules, which evince a clear legislative intent that, in its water
9
use permitting responsibilities, the District give due considera-
tion to the public interest involved with providing drinking water
in an efficient and economic manner.
21. Pursuant to Paragraph 373.223(1)(a), an applicant for a
water use permit must establish that the proposed use of water is
a reasonable- beneficial use as defined in Section 373.019(4).
22. Section 373.019(4) defines "reasonable- beneficial use" as
"the use of water in such quantity as is necessary for economic and
efficient utilization for a purpose and in a manner which is both
reasonable and consistent with the public interest." (Emphasis
added.)
23. In addition, Paragraph 373.223(1)(c), requires that an
applicant establish that the proposed use of water "is consistent
with the Public interest." (Emphasis added.)
24. Under Rule 40E- 2.301(1)(i), which implements Section
373.223, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the
proposed water use "is consistent with Sections 373.016, 373.036,
Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 40.001, 17.40.030, 17- 40.040 and
otherwise in accordance with the public interest." (Emphasis
added.)
25. Section 373.036(2)(b) provides that consideration be
given to "the maximum economic development of the water resources
consistent with other uses."
26. In addition, Section 373.036(2)(e) provides that
consideration also be given to the prevention of wasteful,
uneconomical, impractical, or unreasonable use of water resources."
10
27. Under Rule 17- 40.040 (now renumbered as 17- 40.401):
(1) No permit shall be granted unless the applicant
establishes that the proposed use is a reasonable
beneficial use, will not interfere with presently
existing legal uses of water, and is consistent
with the public interests.
(2) In determining whether a water use is a reasonable
beneficial use, the following factors are to be
considered:
(h) The method and efficiency of use.
(Emphasis added.)
28. It is impossible to read the statutes and rules regulat-
ing the permitting of water use without recognizing two overriding
themes: (1) the Legislature clearly intended that in determining
whether to issue a water use permit, the water management district
must consider the impact of the permit on the public interest, and
(2) any public interest consideration must include an assessment of
the efficiency and economics of the use of the water.
29. Based on the plain language set forth in Chapter 373, the
City respectfully asserts that the City of Sunrise case was wrongly
decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Issues of
efficiency and economics in the permitting of water uses are within
the scope of a water management district's review in determining
whether to grant such water use permits.
30. As set forth in its Petition, the issuance of the permit
11
1
to OBWA will be inconsistent with the public interest of the
citizens of the City of Okeechobee since it will result in an
inefficient and uneconomical utilization of potable water
resources.
31. The City has expended substantial sums to plan for,
design and construct its potable water facilities and infra-
structure, and to hire staff to provide water to OBWA and to the
City's other customers in the City's service area. The City also
has substantial bond obligations as a result of this investment.
The revenues from the sale of potable water to the City's customers
are pledged to these bond obligations.
32. The issuance of the permit to OBWA with the service area
as proposed by OBWA will result not only in the removal of OBWA and
its members from the City's service area (having a substantial
negative impact on the City's remaining customers by depriving them
and the City of necessary revenues to meet the financial, planning
and intergovernmental cooperation obligations incurred in large
part for the benefit of OBWA), but will also result in an
uneconomical and wasteful race between the City and OBWA (in which
capital investment will be unnecessarily duplicated) to provide
service to those areas in the overlapping service area not
presently served by either the City or OBWA.
33. Based on the above, it is apparent that the City will
suffer injuries in fact that entitle it to a Section 120.57 hearing
and that these injuries are within the scope of the District's
authority under Chapter 373 and Rule 40E- 2.301, and, accordingly,
12
are of the type which this proceeding is designed to protect.
WHEREFORE, the City of Okeechobee respectfully requests that
the Hearing Officer convene a hearing on OBWA's Motion to Dismiss
and subsequent to such hearing enter an order denying Okeechobee
Beach Water Association, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and schedule the
final hearing in this cause.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October 1993.
13
Richard A. Lot e'c�i
Fred McCormac
LANDERS PARSONS
P. O. Box 271
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(904) 681 -0311
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Michael Wm. Morell
310 W. College Ave., Room 222
Tallahassee, FL 32301 -1406
(904) 425 -8300
Counsel for City of Okeechobee
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and one copy of the
foregoing Response to Motion to Dismiss has been forwarded by hand
delivery to the Clerk, Division of Administrative Hearings, DeSoto
Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399; and by
U. S. Mail to Cecile I. Ross, Esq., South Florida Water Management
District, P. O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680; and
Stephen A. Walker, Esq., Messer, Vickers, Caparello, et al., 2000
Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33409
this 14th day of October, 1993.
Richard A. Lotsp
DATE ISSUED:
AUTHORIZING:
LOCATED IN:
ISSUED TO:
Form 10299
Rev 1190
South Florida
Water Management District
WATER USE PERMIT NO. 4 -00004 -w
(NON ASSIGNABLE)
June 13. 1991 EXPIRATION DATE ,T1i11P 1 i �nnl
THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING USE OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER AND LAKE OKEECHOBEE FOR PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY WITH AN ANNUAL ALLOCATION OF 938.72 MILLION GALLONS.
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, SECTION
City of Okeechobee
(Public Supply Wellfield)
.55 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34974 -2932
This Permit is issued pursuant to Application Ho. 901228 -23 dated December 20 19 90 for the Use of Water as
specified above and subject to the Special Conditions set forth below. Said application. including all plans and specifications attached thereto. is by
reference made a pan hereof.
Upon wrirten notice to the permittee, this permit may be temporarily modified, or restricted under a Declaration of Water Shortage or a Declaratior
of Emergency due to Water Shortage in accordance with provisions of Ch. 373. Fla. Statutes, and applicable rules and regulations of the South Florid:.
Water Management District.
This Permit may be permanently or temporarily revoked. in whole or in part. for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation o
any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder.
This Permit does not convey to permittee any property rights nor any privileges other than those specified herein. nor relieve the permittee fron
ornplying with any law, regulation, or requirement affecting the rights of other bodies or agencies.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
SEE SHEET (S) 2, 3 and 4 of 4 22 LIMITING CONDITIONS.
FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ON "al..
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
Exhibit "A"
TWP. 37S RGE. 35E
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, BY ITS GOVERNING BOARD
By
Assistark'Secretary
Sheet 1 of 4
LIMITING CONDITIONS
SHEET 2 OF 4
1. IN THE EVENT OF A DECLARED WATER SHORTAGE, WATER WITHDRAWAL REDUCTIONS
WILL BE ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WATER SHORTAGE
PLAN, CHAPTER 40E -21, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. DURING A WATER
SHORTAGE PUMPAGE REPORTS MAY BE NECESSARY ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
2. SOURCE CLASSIFICATION IS:
GROUND WATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER
SURFACE WATER FROM LAKE OKEECHOBEE
3. PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING LEGAL USES CAUSED BY WITHDRAWALS. WHEN ADVERSE
IMPACTS OCCUR, OR ARE IMMINENT, DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL
WITHDRAWAL RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) REDUCTION IN WELL WATER LEVELS THAT IMPAIRS THE ABILITY OF AN
ADJACENT WELL TO PRODUCE WATER (AN ADJACENT WELL MAY BE DOMESTIC WELL
LAWN IRRIGATION WELL, PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL, ETC.)
B) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER BODY SUCH AS
A LAKE, POND, WETLAND, OR A CANAL SYSTEM,
C) SALINE WATER INTRUSION OR INDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS INTO
THE WATER SUPPLY OF AN ADJACENT WATER USE, RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION IN WATER QUALITY, AND
D) CHANGE IN WATER QUALITY THAT CAUSES IMPAIRMENT OR LOSS OF USE OF A
WELL OR WATER BODY.
4. PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING OFF -SITE LAND USE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WITHDRAWALS
PERMITTED HEREIN. IF INCREASED WITHDRAWALS CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON
EXISTING LAND USE THE DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL FUTURE
WITHDRAWAL RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER
BODY (SUCH AS A LAKE, POND, WETLAND, OR CANAL SYSTEM)
B) LAND COLLAPSE OR- SUBSIDENCE CAUSED BY REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS
C) DAMAGE TO CROPS AND OTHER VEGETATION, CAUSING FINANCIAL HARM
TO THE LANDOWNER,
D) DAMAGE TO HABITAT OF RARE, ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES.
5. PERMITTEE SHALL NOT REFUSE IMMEDIATE ENTRY OR ACCESS TO ANY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISTRICT WHO REQUESTS ENTRY FOR PURPOSES OF
INSPECTION AND PRESENTS APPROPRIATE CREDENTIALS.
6. IF ANY CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT ARE VIOLATED, THE PERMIT SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND POSSIBLE MODIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT ACTION,
OR REVOCATION.
7. APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME.
7. APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME.
8. WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES ARE:
EXISTING: SURFACE WATER
2 -2,000 GPM SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWAL PUMPS
1 -14 INCH AND 1 -24 INCH INTAKE PIPES
PROPOSED WELLFIELD:
7 -10" X 160' X 300 GPM WELLS CASED TO 80'.
9. THIS 'PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON JUNE 13, 2001.
SHEET 3 OF 4
10. THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWAL SHALL NOT EXCEED 3.47 MGD.
THE MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWAL FOR THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SHALL NOT
EXCEED 2.88 MGD.
THE MAXIMUM DAILY WITHDRAWAL FOR THE GROUND WATER TREATMENT PLANT SHALL NOT
EXCEED 2.2 MGD.
THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 938.72 MGY (2.57 MGD).
11. USE CLASSIFICATION IS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY USE.
12. THE PERMITTEE SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUTHORIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE USE OR WITHDRAWAL OF
WATER.
13. THE PERMIT DOES NOT CONVEY ANY PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PERMITTEE, NOR ANY
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE PERMIT AND
CHAPTER 40E -2 F.A.C.
14. IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT THE WELL CASING, VALVES, OR
CONTROLS LEAK OR HAVE BECOME INOPERATIVE, REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE
MADE TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM TO AN OPERATING CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO THE
DISTRICT. FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH REPAIRS SHALL BE CAUSE FOR FILLING AND
ABANDONING THE WELL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN CHAPTER
40E -3, F.A.C.
15. PERMITTEE SHALL SECURE A WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,
REPAIR, OR ABANDONMENT OF ALL WELLS, AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 40E -3, F.A.C.
16. ONE MONTH PRIOR TO ALL NEW WELL CONSTRUCTION, PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT
TO THE DISTRICT AN EVALUATION. OF THE IMPACT OF PUMPAGE FROM THE PROPOSED WELL
LOCATION ON ADJACENT EXISTING LEGAL USES, POLLUTION SOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURES, THE SALINE WATER INTERFACE, AND WATER BODIES IF THE PROPOSED WELL
LOCATION IS EITHER DIFFERENT FROM A LOCATION SPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION OR
IF THE WELL LOCATION WAS UNSPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION.
18. IF THE PERMITTEE WILL NOT SERVE A NEW DEMAND WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA FOR
WHICH THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION WAS CALCULATED, THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION MAY
THEN BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.
9
SHEET 4 OF 4
19. THE PERMITTEE SHIP SUBMIT A WATER CONSERVATION PIO. BASED ON THE DISTRICT'S
JULY 1990 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND ACHIEVE DISTRICT APPROVAL OF THE PLAN
BY JANUARY 9, 1992.
20. BY JULY 9, 1992 THE PERMITTEE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WELLFIELD OPERATION
PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM SHALL DETAIL WHICH WELLS ARE PRIMARY, SECONDARY, STANDBY
(RESERVE), AND ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF WELLFIELD MANAGEMENT. THE WELLFIELD
OPERATING PROGRAM MAY BE SUBMITTED AS A LETTER REPORT.
21. THE PERMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN AN OPERABLE ACCURATE FLOW METER ON THE INTAKE
AND DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING
DAILY USE OF WATER.
22. THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY THE DISTRICT OF ANY CHANGE IN SERVICE TERRITORY
OR AREA WITHIN 30 DAYS OF CHANGE IN BOUNDARY.
CON 24 -06
August 31, 1993
Okeechobee Beach Water Association Inc
8840 Highway 78 West
Okeechobee, FL 34974
Subject: Application No. 921204 -10 Wellfield for Okeechobee Beach
Water Association Inc, Okeechobee County, S-- /T37S /R35E
Enclosed is a copy of this District's staff report covering the permit application
referenced therein. It is requested that you read this staff report thoroughly and
understand its contents. The recommendations as stated in the staff report will be
presented to our Governing Board for consideration on September 9, 1993.
Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please
provide written objections, petitions and /or waivers (refer, to the attached "Notice of
Rights to:
Vern Kaiser, Deputy Clerk
South Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 -4680
The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public
hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to
be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is
considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the
staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs
materially from the proposed agency action.
Please contact the District if you have any questions concerning this matter. If we
do not hear from you prior to the date on the "Notice of Rights we will assume you
concur with our recommendations.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a "Notice of Rights" has been mailed to the addressee and the
persons listed in the attached distribution list not later that 5:00 p.m. this 31st
day of August 1993, in accordance with Section 120.60 (3), Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
1
South Florida Water Management District
Gun Club 120.1t1 P O. liax 2•1fl8t) \\'r,t Pntm Reach. h. i'L 5541t1••1680 (-107i ti,Ct1.8300 FL \\'.\•1'ti 1•W M1.- 1:,_
Steve Lamb, Director
Regulation Department
CERTIFIED P 252 257 514
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
(J+ Y•rttitt,tf Board:
Valerie lit-e■ tl, t h.tirm.ut
Frank Vice .•h.tir•nt.tn
Annie lirt.rnrt'nrt
William 1 Lut innnd
1,et,Y lir.,en
\!L.,n :\tilleiILe
Exhibit "B"
Eut;vne lt. Penis
Nathaniel 1' Revel
Lt•,tlt 1i. S. h.ul
REC EIVED
SAP. Q 2 ,1993
Law' Utiice ut
Michael Wm. Morel].
•riirt,r,l C. ('reel. Executive 1)ire.•tur
.1.11 ttt.tti h. \l.tc\ ir.tr. I)etnuv I:>.eruticv 1)ire••t..•1
1mm •USW
Rev. 7:9!
South Florida Wa "Management District
Notice O thghts
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
CIRCUIT COURT
Section 373.617(2), Florida Statutes, provides:
Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Review Sumrnary regarding the subject permit application, which
is this agency's Notice of Proposed Agency Action.
PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the action which is proposed
in the enclosed Notice of Proposed Agency Action /Staff Review Summary, may petition for an
administrative hearing in accordance with the requirements of Rule 40E- 1.521, Florida
Administrative Code, and be filed with (received by) the District Clerk, 3301 Gun Club Road,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application
must be filed within fourteen (14) days of actual receipt of this Notice of Proposed Agency
Action. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights
such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section
120.57, Florida Statutes, concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed
in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal.
FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION
A party to the proceeding below may seek review of a Final Order rendered on the permit
application before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Review under section
373.114, Florida Statutes, is initiated by filing a request for review with the Land and
Adjudicatory Commission and serving a copy on the Department of Environmental Protection
and any person named in the Order within applicable statutory timeframes. This review is
appellate in nature and limited to the record below.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
A party who is adversely affected by final agency action on the permit application is entitled to
judicial review in the District Court of Appeal pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, as
provided therein. Review under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, is initiated by filing a Notice of
Appeal in the appropriate District Court of Appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.110.
Any person substantially affected by a final action of any agency with respect to a permit
may seek review within 90 days of the rendering of such decision and request monetary
damages and other relief in the circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the affected
property is located; however, circuit court review shall be confined solely to determining
whether final agency action is an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power
constituting a taking with just compensation. Review of final agency action for the
purpose of determining whether the action is in accordance with existing statutes or rules
and based on competent substantial evidence shall proceed in accordance with Chapter
120.
Form 0300 /side 2
Rev. 7/93
40E -1.521 Initiation of Formal Proceedings_
(1) Initiation of formal proceedings shall be made by filing a petition with the District Clerk
within the applicable tirneframes set forth in this chapter. The term petition includes any application
or other document which expresses a request for formal proceedings.
(2) All petitions filed under these rules shall contain:
(a) The name and address of the District and the District's file or identification number, if known,
(b) The name and address of the petitioner or petitioners;
(c) An explanation of how each petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the District's
determination;
(d) A statement of when and how petitioner received notice of agency action or notice of proposed
agency action;
(e) A statement of all disputed-issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must indicate;
(f) A concise statement of the ultimate facts which petitioner believes entitle petitioner to the relief
sought as well as the rules and statutes which support petitioner's claim for r elief;
(g) A demand for the relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; and
(h) Other information which the petitioner contends is material.
(3) Upon receipt of a petition for formal proceedings, the Office of Counsel shall review the petition
for compliance with subsection (2). The Board shall accept those petitions in substantial compliance therewith,
which have been timely filed, which establish that the petitioner is a substantially affected party, and which state a
dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the District to resolve. If accepted, the Board shall designate the presiding
officer of the administrative hearing. The District shall promptly give written notice to all parties of the action
taken on the petition, and shall state with particularity its reasons therefor.
(7) If the Board designates a Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings as the
presiding officer, the District Clerk shall forward the petition and all relevant materials filed with the District to the
Division of Administrative Hearings, and shall notify all parties of its action.
Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113 F.S.
Law Implemented 120.53(1), 120.57 F.S.
History New 9 -3 -81, Amended 5- 11 -93.
Formerly 16K- 1.09(1), 16K- 1.112(1) through (3), 16K -1.12
PURPOSE:
LAST DATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD ACTION:
November 10, 1993
OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
1
WATER USE STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY
da ORM' i
S,Lt to Governing
Board Approval
APPLICATION NUMBER: 921204 -10
PROJECT NAME: WELLFIELD FOR OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
WATER USE STATUS: PROPOSED
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT STATUS: NOT APPLICABLE.
RIGHT OF WAY STATUS: NOT APPLICABLE
LOCATION: OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
SEC 29,30,32/T37S/R35E
APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS: OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
8840 HIGHWAY 78 WEST
OKEECHOBEE, FL 34974
OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC
8840 HIGHWAY 78 WEST
OKEECHOBEE, FL 34974
The purpose of this application is to obtain a water use permit for public
water supply system to serve a service area in Okeechobee and Glades Counties.
The wellfield locations are outside of the service area in Sections 29, 30
32, Township 37S, Range 35E. The applicant's service area is depicted in
Exhibits 1 -3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 9, 1993
PERMIT DURATION: 10.00 YEARS
EXPIRATION DATE: September 9, 2003
USE CLASS: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION:
ANNUAL ALLOCATION: 259 MILLION GALLONS (MG)
MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION: 1.06 MILLION GALLONS (MG)
EXISTING WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES GROUNDWATER:
GW SOURCE: SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
1 8" X 160' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES GROUNDWATER:
GW SOURCE: SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
1 8" X 135' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 90 FEET
1 8" X 150' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
3 8" X 155' X 175 GPM WELLS CASED TO 110 FEET
1 8" X 165' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 120 FEET
TOTAL RATED CAPACITY:
GPM MGD MGM MGY
SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM E 175 .25 7.6 92
SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM P 1050 1.51 45.4 552
TOTALS 1225 1.76 52.9 644
2
RESOURCE SAFE YIELD:
The Surficial Aquifer System in the City of Okeechobee area generally ttas low
yield characteristics.. On -site aquifer performance tests indicate the
transmissivity of the Surficial Aquifer System ranges from 5000 -8000 GPD /FT
with an approximate thickness of 160 feet. Water level readings of 15 feet
NGVD result in a total available drawdown of approximately 155 feet. The
applicant's consultant utilized the U.S.G.S. groundwater flow model; MODFLOW,
to address potential impacts by simulating a maximum pumpage of 1.5 MGD with 2
in 10 deficit rainfall. However, due to a change in the maximum daily
allocation to 1.06 MGD, Staff utilized the Theis Non- Equilibrium model to
simulate maximum daily withdrawals for a 90 day period with no recharge.
Results of the Theis model (Exhibit 5) predict a maximum drawdown of
approximately 13.5 feet in the production zone of the wellfield. The
sustained yield of the aquifer is not expected to be exceeded as a result of
the withdrawal of the recommended allocation.
EXISTING LEGAL USERS:
The closest existing legal user is Wolff Brothers Dairy, Inc. (Permit 47-
00035 -W), which utilizes surface water from the County Highway Drainage Ditch
along Eagle Bay Road for irrigation of 17 acres of citrus. The proposed water
treatment plant site is located south of Durrance Road with the 17 acre citrus
grove to the north. Results of the modelling indicate an approximate drawdown
of 5 feet at the existing legal user's surface water pump location. Because
the existing legal user utilizes only surface water from the ditch, the
projected drawdown should not interfere with the withdrawal capability of the
pump. The potential for adverse impacts to occur to existing legal users as a
result of the withdrawal of the recommended allocation is considered minimal.
LEGAL DOMESTIC USERS:
A residential area, located directly to the northeast of the main wellfield
site, may potentially utilize the Surficial Aquifer System as a source of
potable water. For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that a domestic
user is as close as the project boundary withdrawing water from a well with a
centrifugal pump that has a lifting capability of 20 feet below land surface.
The dry season water level of the Surficial Aquifer System is approximately 5
feet below land surface. Modelling indicates an approximate drawdown of 12
feet at the project boundary which would result in a water level of 17 feet
below land surface. The potential for adverse impacts to occur to existing
legal domestic users as a result of the withdrawal of the recommended
allocation is not considered to be likely.
IMPACT EVALUATION SUMMARY
3
SALINE WATER INTRUSION:
The project is located over 32 miles from the nearest source of surface saline
water. The applicant has submitted water quality results from each of the
three test wells which do not indicate the presence of connate saline water.
The Surficial Aquifer System is hydrologically separated from the Floridan
Aquifer System by a confining unit. Therefore, the potential for significant
saline intrusion or upconing to occur_as a result of the withdrawal of the
recommended allocation is considered minimal.
PROTECTED WETLANDS ENVIRONMENT:
An off- site, viable wetland area is located northwest of the proposed
wellfield. Results of the Theis modelling indicate that withdrawals from the
proposed wellfield location result in less than one foot of drawdown at the
wetland boundary, when wells 1 -6 are utilized equally in the normal wellfield
rotation to meet the maximum daily allocation and well number 7 (located
closest to the wetland) is not used. Exhibit 5B shows the extent of the
projected one foot drawdown contour in relation to the wetland area.
Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to occur to protected wetland
environments as a result of the withdrawal of the recommended allocation is
considered minimal. Staff recommends that well number 7 be utilized only as
an emergency backup facility or, if feasible, relocated at a greater distance
away from the wetland area. See Limiting Condition Number 28.
SOURCES OF POLLUTION:
The closest known potential pollution source in the vicinity of the project is
the Time Saver Shell No. 49 located approximately 1.5 miles north of the main
wellfield in the north part of Section 20, Township 37S, Range 35E. The gas
station has documented hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater and has an
approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) from the Department of Environmental
Protection. The RAP and associated recovery system are currently under review
for a water use permit. Results of the model predict a drawdown of less than
0.1 feet at the gas station boundary. The potential for the induced movement
of contaminants from known sources of pollution to occur as a result of the
withdrawal of the recommended allocation is considered minimal.
ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION:
FACILITIES
The applicant proposes one wellfield and one water treatment plant with no
emergency interconnections. Pursuant to Limiting Condition Number 18, the
permittee shall develop and implement a wellfield operating program which
details the operation schedule of the wellfield. This plan may be submitted
to the District as a letter report. Pursuant to Limiting Condition Number 28,
Staff recommends that proposed well number 7 only be utilized as an emergency
backup facility due to its proximity to the off -site wetland area and the
potential for adverse impacts.
4
The wellfield will have 6 proposed and 1 existing (no. 5) Surficial Aquifer
System wells with a total proposed withdrawal capacity of 1.764 MGD. Wells 3-
7 will be located in one area as the main wellfield with wells 1 and 2 located
in the vicinity of the water treatment site, as shown on Exhibit 5B. The lime
softening water treatment facility is proposed to have a capacity of 1.5 MGD.
There are two elevated storage tanks with a 75,000 gallon capacity and an
additional proposed storage tank with a capacity of 1 to 1.5 MG.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The Department of Environmental Protection and Okeechobee County HRS have
reviewed the application and have no objections to the proposed wellfield and
issuance of the permit.
DURATION OF PERMIT
Current District regulations (Permit Information Manual, Volume III, Section
5.1.2.1) allow a maximum of a 10 year permit duration. Staff recommends a
permit duration of 10 years.
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
1. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades
Counties to pass an ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the
hours of 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. seven days per week.
2. Xeriscape OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades Counties to pass an
ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles.
3. Ultra -low Volume Plumbing Fixtures OBWA has requested Okeechobee and
Glades Counties to pass an ordinance which requires ultra -low volume plumbing
fixtures on all new construction.
4. Water Conservation Rate Structure OBWA has adopted an increasing block
rate structure and seasonal rates to encourage water conservation.
5. Leak Detection OBWA performs a leak detection survey when the
unaccounted -for water loss is greater than 10% utilizing leak surveillance
techniques and calibration and certification of all water meters.
6. Rain sensor devices OBWA has requested Okeechobee and Glades Counties to
pass an ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an
automatic lawn sprinkler system to install,'operate and maintain a rain sensor
device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the
occurance of adequate rainfall:
7. Water Conservation Education Program OBWA will print a message about
water conservation to customers on the monthly bills.
8.. Water OBWA does not operate its own wastewater treatment
plant.' Part of the OBWA service area is served by septic tanks, with the
5
remainder of the wastewater being treated by the City of Okeechobee.
SERVICE AREA AND LEGAL CONTROL
Introduction
6
OBWA requests to serve its existing customer base and the current and
projected demands in its proposed service area (Exhibit 3). Since 1970, OBWA
has been supplying water to the requested service area in portions of Glades
and Okeechobee Counties through its corporate owned water transmission lines.
OBWA provides water service in the designated area to its approximately 2000
members, who own and control the corporation. Each customer or member has an
ownership interest in the corporation and'voting rights.
OBWA's proposed service area lies within both Okeechobee and Glades Counties.
In the permit application, OBWA submitted copies of franchise agreements
executed with each county requiring water service by OBWA for the proposed
service area within their respective jurisdictions.
Criteria 3.1.1.1.1 requires an entity regulated by the Public Service
Commission (PSC) to obtain a certification of the proposed service area prior
to issuance of the water use permit. OBWA is exempt from regulation by the
Public Service Commission pursuant to Section 367.022, Fla. Stat. As required
by Section 367.031, Fla. Stat., OBWA has obtained an "Order Indicating the
Exempt Status of Okeechobee Beach Water Association, Inc." (PSC Exemption
Order) for the proposed service area.
The City of Okeechobee "City currently sells water to OBWA. pursuant to
their bulk sale agreement "Contract OBWA then distributes the water
through its water distribution system to its customers within the service
area. OBWA currently does not intend to renew its contractual relationship
with the City after expiration of the Contract in September, 1994. OBWA
intends to begin producing its own water from the wellfield requested in this
permit application. OBWA also plans to build a 1.5 million gallon per day
water treatment plant which it represents will be operational in 1994.
The City currently has a water use permit (Permit 47- 00004 -W), which was
renewed in 1991. The permit includes an allocation of water to supply to OBWA
pursuant to the Contract between the City and OBWA.
The City has provided information to District Staff regarding 'the OBWA
requested service area. Specifically, the.City represents that City Ordinance
488, which it adopted in 1983, provides it the exclusive right to supply water
to portions of the OBWA designated service area (Exhibits 2A, 2B 3). The
City's claim is that such ordinance prohibits OBWA from serving the requested
area and the City asks the District to deny the OBWA requested allocation.
Since two entities claim the right to serve the same geographic area, the
District's service area dispute criteria is called into question by OBWA's
application. The following is a discussion of this criteria as applied to the
OBWA application.
District Service Area, Dispute Criteria
Pursuant to the reasonable- beneficial use test set. forth in Section 373.223,
Fla. Stat., a permit applicant must demonstrate need for the requested -water
allocation. Need is demonstrated in part through a showing of "legal control"
over the area to be served by a public water supply. The District's legal
control criteria is set forth in Criteria 3.1.1 of the Basis of Review.
Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 of the BOR states that conflicting service area claims
between the applicant and an unregulated water service area must be resolved
by the involved parties. Service area is defined as "the geographic region in
which a water supplier has the and legal right to distribute water for
use." The Criteria goes on to state that "unresolved disputes will prompt the
Staff to recommend an allocation based only on the non disputed protions of
the projected service area." Staff's position is that the purpose of this
resource related criteria is to prevent waste when water is allocated to two
separate entities for the same use, or double allocated.
In making the determination of whether the applicant has need for the
requested water allocation, pursuant to Criteria 1.3 of the BOR, District
Staff is directed to implement the Basis of Review criteria flexibly, "with
the primary goal being to meet District water resource objectives... Depending
on the magnitude of impacts, other methods will be considered by Staff, or
presented to the District's Governing Board for its consideration:" Thus, in
this circumstance of disputed service area claims, the context of the City's
claims must be considered in relation to the District's resource objectives,
such as protecting water supplies from depletion and contamination.
Moreover, it is important to note what Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 is not intended to
address. Specifically, the criteria does not, and cannot be interpreted as,
giving the District the authority to decide service area claims. It is not
within the jurisdiction of the District's consumptive use permitting authority
to adjudicate service area disputes. These disputes generally involve
contract and statutory rights that are irrelevant to the objectives of Chapter
373 and are properly resolved in circuit court actions. Likewise, the
issuance of a consumptive use permit with an allocation of water for use
within a disputed geographic region does not establish or alter the legal
right of either entity to supply water to the affected region.
With the resource and public interest related context of the District's
service area inquiry in mind,.,it is also necessary to understand the extent of
inquiry which the agency conducts when a service area is disputed. Due to the
lack of jurisdiction to decide service area disputes, this scope of inquiry
into legal control is limited.
In implementing the legal control criteria, the District requires only a
preliminary demonstration of legal control to supply water to a subject
.service area, irrespective of another entity's claim for the service area.
Only a preliminary demonstration of legal control is necessary, because the
7
agency's purpose of inquiring into these matters is limited in scope, as
stated above. A requirement for demonstration of.legal control beyond this
preliminary showing would put the District in the precarious position of
adjudicating the rights of disputing entities, a responsibility that lies
solely within the circuit court's jurisdiction. In extraordinary
circumstances, such as this application, a disputed service area question
arises. However, the existence of a disputed service area does not alter the
preliminary nature of the _agency's inquiry into legal control matters.
8
City of Okeechobee Service Area Dispute,-
In response to the City's service area dispute arguments, OBWA maintains that
it has facially demonstrated legal control over the service area through its
legal obligation and ability to distribute water to its customers. An
examination of the nature of OBWA itself and the Contract terms and
relationship created thereby will further clarify each party's interest in
supplying water to the designated area.
As stated above, OBWA is a corporation which provides water service solely to
its members, who own and control the corporation. Each customer has an
ownership interest in the corporation and voting rights. Thus, OBWA has a
unique legal obligation to supply water to its customers.
The City sells water to OBWA pursuant to a bulk sale agreement, or the
Contract. OBWA then distributes the water throughout its water distribution
system to its customers within the service area. Significantly, the Contract
expires in September, 1994. Although the parties have attempted to negotiate
a renewal, it appears that they are currently at an impasse.
Clearly, both parties have some interest in supplying water to the service
area. Initial reading of Criteria 3.1.1.1.5 suggests that this agency must
attempt to force the parties to resolve their dispute and, if possible, issue
a partial allocation for undisputed areas. The result of such an action, in
this case, would be contrary to the agency's overriding interest in the
public's health, safety and welfare. If a water use permit is not issued to
OBWA, the citizens may not receive the potable supply upon which they depend
for daily subsistence.
There is no assurance under the Contract that water will be supplied to OBWA
for its existing customers after October, 1994, unless OBWA obtains a water
use permit. As set forth in the PSC Exemption Order, OBWA represents that it
must begin construction of the water withdrawal facilities and water treatment
plant as soon as possible in order to supply water by the time the Contract
with the City expires in 1994 or when the water treatment plant becomes
operational.
Moreover, by denying the requested allocation based on the fact that there is
a service area dispute, the District would in effect be adjudicating the right
of OBWA to service its customers. OBWA has instituted a circuit court action
to resolve the service area dispute set forth by the City. If the legal
Based on these considerations, District Staff has determined that OBWA has
made the requisite preliminary showing that it has the legal right and ability
to provide water to its customers and, therefore, has legal control. District
Staff recognizes that a facially sufficient showing of a legal right to
service water within a geographic region may be made by more than one public
water supply entity in some cases. Thus, in this instance, the allocation of
water to the two entities for a limited time period until the dispute is
ultimately resolved through the pending court action is necessary due to the
overriding public interest concerns.
dispute is ultimately resolved in OBWA's favor, denial of the OBWA permit
application now would prevent it from initiating construction of necessary
water withdrawal and treatment facilities in time to be able to provide water
to its customers in October, 1994. Such a denial would force OBWA to accept
the City's provision of service, thereby confirming the City's service area
claims; a matter not within the District's authority to adjudicate.
The terms of the Contract further support OBWA's assertion that OBWA has the
ultimate legal obligation to supply water to its customers. Under the
Contract, the City retains the right to "discontinue water service to the
Association until all arrearage is paid in full." The fact that the City can
shut off water supply to OBWA undermines the City's arguments that it has the
exclusive legal obligation to supply water to the affected area. (See
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Contract). Furthermore, under the Contract, OBWA is
held ultimately responsible for "testing, evaluating and treating the water
purchased from the City..." and the City is "not held accountable for the
quality of water delivered" to OBWA. Thus, OBWA, and not the City, has the
legal responsibility for assuring that an adequate quantity and quality
of drinking water is supplied to its customers.
In addition to the prima facie establishment of the legal right to serve
water, pursuant to the definition of "service area," the water supplier must
have the ability to distribute water for use within the affected area. This
recognizes that although the permit applicant or permittee is able to
demonstrate the requisite legal water supply right, no supply of water will
occur if the entity is without the ability to distribute water within the
affected area. In this case, the. infrastructure used to distribute the water
within the service area is owned by OBWA. In the event that the Contract is
not renewed in 1994, it is unclear how the City would be able to actually
distribute water to OBWA's customers.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The applicant has based demand projections on population figures from the
existing customer base of OBWA and areas outside the City of Okeechobee's 201
facilities planning area. The population projections are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plans for Okeechobee and Glades Counties. The applicant
indicates a population of approximately 8,013 persons for the year 1992. The
projected increase in population through the year 2003 is approximately 337
people for a total of 8,350 persons in the service area. The applicant
9
requests an average daily demand of .71 MGD for the year 2003, based on a
historical per capita use rate of approximately 85 gallons per day. The
implementation of the water conservation plan should yield future water
savings which will be used for the forecasting of projected demands at the
next permit re- issuance.
REQUESTED AVERAGE DAILY ALLOCATION
The applicant has requested an average daily allocation of .71 MGD 'or 259.15
MGY.
REQUESTED MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS
The applicant has requested a maximum daily allocation of 1.065 MGD. The
maximum daily allocation is based on a maximum daily to average daily demand
ratio of 1.5 weighted over the entire service area requested to be served by
OBWA.
Staff recommends an annual allocation of 259 MGY (.71 MGD average) and maximum
daily allocation of 1.06 MGD from the wellfield withdrawing groundwater from
the Surficial Aquifer System for supplying potable water to the requested
service area.
10
APPLICATION NUMBER: 921204 -10
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 9, 1993
Staff recommends approval of Application No. 921204 -10 for public water
supply serving 8350 persons in the year 2003 with an average per capita
use rate of 85 gallons per day and a maximum daily to average daily
pumping ratio of 1.5. Withdrawals are from the Surficial Aquifer System
via 1 existing withdrawal facility and 6 proposed withdrawal facilities.
The use is reasonable beneficial, will not adversely impact presently
existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The use
is further subject to 28 limiting conditions.
DATE: V
APPLICATION REVIEWER: C..,/ ��n�ti V1.30/9.3
Thomas Colios
SUPERVISOR: Q,,^-,. C=am DATE: a 13° 193
Jeffrey Rosenfeld Q//
WATER USE DIVISION APPROVAL: /2- /3 DATE: g/36/
Wm. Scott Burns, P.G.
DRkfl Subiect to GOVernifig
Board Approval
11
2 SOURCE CLASSIFICATION IS:
LIMITING CONDITIONS
1 IN THE EVENT OF A DECLARED WATER SHORTAGE, WATER WITHDRAWAL REDUCTIONS
WILL BE ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WATER SHORTAGE
PLAN, CHAPTER 40E -21, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. DURING A WATER
SHORTAGE PUMPAGE REPORTS MAY BE NECESSARY ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
GROUNDWATER FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
3 PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING LEGAL USES CAUSED BY WITHDRAWALS. WHEN ADVERSE IMPACTS
OCCUR, OR ARE IMMINENT, DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL WITHDRAWAL
RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) REDUCTION IN WELL WATER LEVELS THAT IMPAIRS THE ABILITY OF AN
ADJACENT WELL TO PRODUCE WATER (AN ADJACENT WELL MAY BE A DOMESTIC
WELL, LAWN IRRIGATION WELL, PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL, ETC.),
B) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER BODY SUCH AS
A LAKE, POND, OR A CANAL SYSTEM,
C) SALINE WATER INTRUSION OR INDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE WATER
SUPPLY OF AN ADJACENT WATER USE, RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION IN WATER QUALITY, AND
D) CHANGE IN WATER QUALITY THAT CAUSES IMPAIRMENT OR LOSS OF USE OF A
WELL OR WATER BODY.
4 PERMITTEE SHALL MITIGATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT ANY ADVERSE
IMPACT ON EXISTING OFF -SITE LAND USE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WITHDRAWALS
PERMITTED HEREIN. IF INCREASED WITHDRAWALS CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON
EXISTING LAND USE, THE DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL FUTURE
WITHDRAWAL RATES. ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE:
A) SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS IN AN ADJACENT WATER BODY
(SUCH AS A LAKE, POND, WETLAND OR CANAL SYSTEM);
B) LAND COLLAPSE OR SUBSIDENCE CAUSED BY REDUCTION IN WATER LEVELS;
C) DAMAGE TO CROPS AND OTHER VEGETATION, CAUSING FINANCIAL HARM TO
THE LANDOWNER; AND
D) DAMAGE TO HABITAT OF RARE, ENDANGERED SPECIES.
5 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DISTRICT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER,
INSPECT, AND OBSERVE THE PERMITTED SYSTEM TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
6 IF ANY CONDITION OF THE PERMIT IS VIOLATED, THE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND POSSIBLE MODIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT ACTION, OR REVOCATION.
7 APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME.
12
8 WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES ARE:
GROUNDWATER EXISTING:
1 8" X 160' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
GROUNDWATER PROPOSED:
1 8" X 135' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 90 FEET
1 8" X 150' X 175 GPM.WELL CASED TO 105 FEET
3 8" X 155' X 175 GPM WELLS CASED TO 110 FEET
.1 8" X 165' X 175 GPM WELL CASED TO 120 FEET
9 THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 09, 2003.
10. ANNUAL ALLOCATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 259 MG.
MAXIMUM DAILY ALLOCATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.06 MG.
11. USE CLASSIFICATION IS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.
12. THE PERMITTEE SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND SPECIAL
DISTRICT AUTHORIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE USE OR WITHDRAWAL OF WATER.
13. THE PERMIT DOES NOT CONVEY ANY PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PERMITTEE, NOR ANY
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE PERMIT AND CHAPTER
40E -2, FAC.
14. A PERMIT MODIFICATION WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, ALLOCATION (INCREASE OR DECREASE), CHANGES IN USE, OR
CHANGE IN FACILITIES OR IN THE LOCATION OF FACILITIES. THE PERMITTEE IS
ADVISED THAT AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION SHALL BE EVALUATED BASED ON
RULES AND PERMITTING CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL.
15. PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT COPIES OF THE MONTHLY DER WATER
TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS SHOWING WELLFIELD PUMPAGE. REPORTS SHALL BE
SUBMITTED MONTHLY IN THE MONTH FOLLOWING EITHER THE FIRST MONTH OF PUMPAGE
OR PERMIT ISSUANCE.
16. PERMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE "UNACCOUNTED FOR" DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES IF
THE PERMITTEE DISTRIBUTES WATER WITHIN ONE MILE OF SURFACE SALINE WATER.
LOSSES SHALL BE DETERMINED FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ON A MONTHLY
BASIS. PERMITTEE SHALL DEFINE THE MANNER IN WHICH "UNACCOUNTED FOR"
.LOSSES ARE CALCULATED. DATA. COLLECTION SHALL BEGIN WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF
PERMIT ISSUANCE. LOSS REPORTING SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ON A
YEARLY BASIS FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
17. IF THE PERMITTEE DOES NOT SERVE A NEW DEMAND WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA FOR
WHICH THE ALLOCATION WAS CALCULATED, THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION MAY THEN
BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.
13
18. PRIOR TO MARCH 09, 1994, PERMITTEE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A
"WELLFIELD OPERATING PROGRAM THIS PROGRAM SHALL DETAIL WHICH WELLS ARE
PRIMARY, SECONDARY, STANDBY (RESERVE), AND ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF WELLFIELD
MANAGEMENT. THE WELLFIELD OPERATING PROGRAM, WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED AS A
LETTER REPORT, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT STAFF PRIOR TO DECEMBER 09,
1993.
19. PERMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN AN OPERABLE AND ACCURATE FLOW METER ON THE
DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING
DAILY USE OF WATER.
20. THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY THE DISTRICT OF ANY CHANGE IN SERVICE TERRITORY
OR AREA WITHIN 30 DAYS OF CHANGE IN BOUNDARY.
21. PERMITTEE SHALL MAKE MONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
EACH PRODUCTION WELL AND SHALL SUBMIT THIS DATA TO THE DISTRICT IN THE
MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATA COLLECTION.
22. PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 09, 1995, POTABLE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES ARE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A STUDY EVALUATING EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY
PREPAREDNESS, INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES, POTENTIAL
PUMPAGE SHIFTING AND THE FEASIBILITY OF EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING WATER ON A SHORT TERM, EMERGENCY BASIS TO ADJOINING
UTILITIES. THE PERMITTEE MUST PROVIDE THE DISTRICT WITH A COPY OF THE
STUDY. AS TO EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTS, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY MUST ASSESS
THE TECHNICAL, PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC ABILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO DEVELOP
INTERCONNECTING PIPES CAPABLE OF DELIVERING WATER TO ADJOINING UTILITIES
TO MEET EMERGENCY, SHORT -TERM WATER SUPPLY NEEDS. (IN THE EVENT OF AN
INTERCONNECT BEING ESTABLISHED, INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PERMIT
ALLOCATIONS WILL NOT ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY USAGE.) IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
DISTRICT TO ENCOURAGE EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTS BETWEEN ADJOINING PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EMERGENCY WATER
SUPPLY. THUS, WHERE THE FEASIBILITY STUDY INDICATES EMERGENCY
INTERCONNECTS ARE POSSIBLE, THE DISTRICT ENCOURAGES THE ADJOINING
UTILITIES TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME.
23. THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN REQUIRED BY CRITERIA 3.1, OF APPENDIX 1 OF THE
BASIS OF REVIEW FOR WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT JANUARY, 1993, MUST BE IMPLEMENTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CONTAINED THEREIN.
24. IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT THE WELL CASING, VALVES, OR
CONTROLS LEAK OR HAVE BECOME INOPERATIVE, REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE
MADE TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM TO AN OPERATING CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO THE
DISTRICT. FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH REPAIRS SHALL BE CAUSE FOR FILLING AND
ABANDONING THE WELL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN CHAPTERS
40E -3 AND 40E -30, F.A.C.
25. IF A PROPOSED WELL IS DIFFERENT FROM A LOCATION SPECIFIED IN THE
APPLICATION, THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT AN EVALUATION OF
THE IMPACT OF PUMPAGE FROM THE PROPOSED WELL LOCATION ON ADJACENT EXISTING
14
LEGAL USES, POLLUTION SOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, THE SALINE WATER
INTERFACE, AND WATER BODIES ONE MONTH PRIOR TO ALL NEW WELL CONSTRUCTION.
THE PERMITTEE IS ADVISED THAT THE PROPOSAL MUST MEET ALL PERMITTING
CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL, AND THAT BASED ON STAFF
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT, A FORMAL MODIFICATION OF THE PERMIT MAY-BE
REQUIRED.
26. PERMITTEE SHALL SECURE A WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,
REPAIR, OR ABANDONMENT OF ALL WELLS, AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTERS 40E -3 AND
40E -30, F.A.C.
27. THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT AN UPDATED TABLE "A" (WELL
DESCRIPTION TABLE) WITHIN. ONE MONTH OF COMPLETION OF THE 6 PROPOSED WELLS
IDENTIFYING THE ACTUAL TOTAL AND CASED DEPTHS, PUMP MANUFACTURER AND MODEL
NUMBERS, PUMP TYPES, INTAKE DEPTHS AND TYPE OF METERS.
28. PERMITTEE SHALL UTILIZE PROPOSED WELL NO. 7 AS AN EMERGENCY BACK -UP SUPPLY
SOURCE, UNLESS THE PROPOSED WELL IS RELOCATED. IF THE PROPOSED WELL IS
RELOCATED, LIMITING CONDITION NO. 25 APPLIES AND MUST BE ADDRESSED.
15
SOLI% flOtIDA
Witt VANAGEVEKt
DISTIACI
ID 10
$$.0
UPPER EAST
COAST
DADEI
MONROE
•009$1
sold
1
I r
DOI
1. 1
.1' '71
...h.
'4-
-1 I
1 .•1 1•••
1
j; .st
I. tst.":71.; I -1;71
4 zl.p 1"1.s
I 21=7 tt. I
t d
1-
-1 1 -1-j,-
5-
1.•sti •11•
SIKU4, LItICM)
am.
4 4.
J—
•cl. I 12' O I 1-= I I
I nt
4
.<1 4 1 1 I
'4
7
====.117
.7
..9
10 e
v
.\11 I
r— 7
T t" 7 r:
I 1 1
I tr... -I
1-7.1 I
17.
1 1 ,1
r=?i:
;T: 17"
1:
L
OBWA REQUESTED
SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY
7 1,4•••
...oRiDA
i
..-......z.,.......
Of ILIPID4
•...I
.1 ■•••01 .9611 •g•yeular of .../.018.110o
1 1
i 1 1 I. 11P TN? /0 fl..1...1•11D6
1• •IN•••••••••••
j
1
ONMP•Me••■
I
GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
1 /OKEECHOBEE. COUNTY
FXH IBIT 2A
4. 41.4.'4.
r
1 1i 1 :1
i
i
•!T 1 .k 1J'7
mo d° VI
Y ,1
1 11 'lf 1.
Iji r li 1. i! 1 111 it, ih 111
1 t jl I ?I 1 li 1 i
111 I Ili• 11
'1
;ill li l 1114 11 hl .1 1
'it i lili11'1 5i'tl 1 1 11
a
t
i i I t i t 1 t t i l i
i I 11 w 1 1 1 i it. 1 0.1
11ij i 111 1 1 111 11111
d !hi i l11, 111111 1i1i11ff iiiiiiiieili ,I11i11111;i11111111
IIIII 1 ..11.3c9 1...•
y:.JClyil
G111i;w:t'1;:;.::
Cq 11
'1�i p�cS•e'' DQd1 Pal i 1
r
e d l
y I.1 iy 1'y
1•
•-1 e
41 01:
AJ 4.1
cg Art
ICC
Ce
JAI CO W O
:•^J::'J O
i;;;,414,10 J
•.1t
a
e
••1
-1. .I. .J'4e14•
0
o
V44
tt Y
•ft
z
fil "I'6'I
•rl•+ "1 I r '.7 L 1 -F 1 49 1 �O_
1 a
r. i t:
I 1 s 11
i 1 i I•:•_l'• b�.. 1 V.
1 .:1.;.11 I(;..1. f', 11 .1 r f12 a'I I
f 1'.1 1•a J r ;7,.F.;�1 »t` .t.1..: 1 1
1 X1'1' I 1 s 1� i e p
1.
s
l -'r P..�;..e'::�f' 1 ).,,I i- 1 e
t J i a e0 •e e 1a r
u
i. ;7 '1 ?.,1. f...: Q.. 1 �1 R. ra•fs•J t,
_i? I eq.": 1
l! .:1
1 I: Y.i•. Cy' 21
r 1 EXHIBIT 2$
t i r
Z i
0
U
N rt.
N
Q
Q `Z
ul p
r a
IA
it �W C4 Cdf1C4
43;;;AS 1
1 ��Cl
0
00110 07001111016
EXH
to N
3 3 0 1t1 U1
10 O O
a a w m t. z
0
111
H
VI •r
3 3
t 0 4 r-I
a a a Cl H H r4 a
0
t0
H
r ri
i UI O O
l0 N N
w a a 00 H H r4 a z
0
z
N�
c4 P4
)4
H
C4
A
0
H
0
M
H
m a z
0 z
H H
(-;1 N
t o o o Ul
a a a CO H H H a Z E 1 r Z
r to O1
N 0\
r4 Z r4
z
o W
m Ql
r 0
01 00
N Ul VI rh
H Z O H 01
10 to
w r
H
Z
a
C7
z
H
O t0
r 0\
Ot N
V N
O Nil
H U1
z
to w
o .r
t• rl
of H
rn
0
H U1
z Ei
a w H W M A 7 a Q H H 1< A 04
1> a zz 14 W 0 A H t4 H a 04 a o h H W 40
1 H 0 3 04 X a H a 4 P g a 0 0
EXHIBIT 4A
a
a
40
Z
H
a 0
E4 04
C.)
a
o
H 0
o 4 Z
Z Z H
0 H
a H rrl
4
4O H
g VC 73 1 a
Z
ret GI
PI
0
Z
o3 CI Irl
H
0 N
r4
LII C4
L.- r a In Ul
in 0 0 C I: i
0 •4
134 Z r4 Z r4 VI
at a ai co 1-1 r4 r4
1-9
1-1
C`
in 0 .0
4
co
n -4
al CO r 4 r4 r4 a Z rl Z
44
0
Z
H al Cd Z A
E4 H PI VI
El
0 CI4 $11 U
a '4 :0 H 4 4
ci I-I Fc■
Ig E Z
g 0
A Z
til
u
Gil c4 14 1:1
H r4
m 14 al
R g 1 8
Cd E4 g ei E4 E4
U
1
Erl H 04 of Z a4 H 04 4 S4
EXHIBIT 48
u1
0
0
0
ri
>4
r4
Cd
W 0
04 0
r� O
r7 u,
0
1a
•i
O
0
ri
H
H
ati
H
H
a
O
U
z
A A 0 A A A
ZZZZEZ
r r r- r r r-
%.0 %I) to
r- r r r r- N
r4 r-1 r-i
r C1 N eta
UY .r r4 r4
r-I
r-1 ri rl r4 r4 r♦
{!1 N O1 01 01 lf1
o r{ r4 ri N
m r^/ r♦ ri r4 r1
v-4 N m \O
EXHIBIT 5A
27°15:
-704' Ei\----
i v
i LI L
ri 2 N.-.:1
z
0 p I 0 i
t: ri
i 1 o
41 s
r• c 1 e .77}_ _.....--.6-• 12
aii
.32
O s
ZUCKICW.N
,312
30 10
1230"
T. 37 5.
T. 38 5.
1. •1
7 .2 :11.:
6- '''':-.1r .n•
Tr ig i ,1C 7.77.1.
r ti •••••P MI
11110
TIME SAYER
SHELL NO. 49
APPROXIMATE EXTENT
OF ONE FOOT DRAWDOWN
WOLFF BROTHERS DAIRY, INC.
PERMIT NO. 47-00035—W
limpits14
Watar 'Dank
•■16
NI•
OFF—SITE
WETLAND
NORTH
.,?4•
J.
u
I
1
Elic][
c.
10 r... s_.
i
SCALE: 1" 1000'
m
-J
BASINGEI4 14 MI.
7
20
5
k
1
11
EXHIBIT
411 •■•.1.1.
n6
50 Trc.
16 L. Sr:,
TABLE1
.PAST WATER USE
1981 5358 2458 67 1 134.907
1982 5450 2500 67 137.130
1983 5670 2601 67 143.554
1984 5701 2707 75 162.456
1985 6113 2804 82 182.829
1986 6302 2891 82 188.876
1987 6512 2987 82 .195.908
1988 6662 3056 84 204.600
1989 6786 3113 87 215.365
1990 6832 3134 82 204.715
1991 6871 3152 85 213.981
1992 8013 3205 85 248.565
i L:Tv. V.4
r e
�l cY •vroF .,.j KS oK.s' ,.k T z`K.e.. r `x' J •2 _..ice
r.. 0 e"` a ra�-•a• c d:k:.`�yt« ca i 7
0.370
0.376
0.373
0.445
0.501
0.517
0.537
0.561
0.590
0.561
0.586
0.681
0.585
0.570
0.601
0.651
0.752
0.783
0.740
0.803
1.345
0.817
0.866
1.022
EXHIBIT 6A
TABLE 4
PROJECTED WATER USE
1993 8018 3207
1994 8048 3219
1995 8078 3231
1996 8108 3243
1997 8140 3256
1998 8175 3270
1999 8210 3284
2000 8245 3298
2001 8280 3312
2002 8315 3326
2003 8350 3340
2004 8385 3354
2005 8420 3368
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
248.93
249.66
250.76
251.49
252.58
253.68
254.77
255.87
256.96
258.06
259.15
260.25
261.34
0.682
0.684
0.687
0.689
0.692
0.695
0.698
0.701
0.704
0.707
0.710
0.713
0.716
Twit
Wee kt
1.023
1.026
1.031
1.034
1.038
1.043
1.047
1.052
1.056
1.061
1.065
1.070
1.074
EXHIBIT. 68
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2773
2800
2828
2855
2883
2913
2943
2973
3003
3033
3063
3093
3123
TABLE 3
PROJECTED WATER USE
1109
1120
1131
1142
1153
1165
1177
1189
1201
1213
1225
1237
1249
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
.85
85
85
85
85
86.14
86.87
87.60
88.70
89.43
90.52
91.25
92.35
93.08
94.17
94.90
96.00
96.73
0.236 0.354
0.238 0.357
0.240 0.360
0.243 0.365
0.245 0.368
0.248 0.372
0.250 .0.375
0.253 0.380
0.255 0.383
0.258 0.387
0.260 0.390
0.263 0.395
0.265 0.398
EXHIBIT 6C
TABLE 2
PROJECTED WATER USE
1993 5245 2098
1994 5248 2099
1995 5250 2100
1996 5253 2101
1997 5258 2103
1998 5263 2105
1999 5268 2107
2000 5273 2109
2001 5278 2111
2002 5283 2113
2003 5288 2115
2004 5293 2117
2005 5298 2119
Y atopa.e�,. c .+t
�s
r-44.,, t Zvs
ti Z
rvr6 i-
85 162.79 0.446 0.669
85 162.79 0.446 0.669
85 162.79 0.446 0.669
85 163.16 0.447 0.671
85 163.16 0.447 0.671
85 163.16 0.447 0.671
85 163.52 0.448 0.672
85 163.52 0.448 0.672
85 163.89 0.449 0.674
85 163.89 0.449 0.674
85 163.89 0.449 0.674
85 164.25 0.450 0.675
85 164.25 0.450 0.675
EXHIBIT 60
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
Reviewer:
X Thomas Colios
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
X Port St. Lucie
STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST
X S. Anderson
X B. Colavecchio REG
X D. Cullipher
P. Kochan
X K. Love GPA
J. Morgan
X B. Orlowsky
B. Pratt
J. Show
G. Sinn
M. Slayton
A. Waterhouse
L. Werst
Dir, Water Resource Evaluation Dept
Director, Land Management
Director, Planning Dept.
Executive Director
X Well Construction Permitting
X Area Engineer
X Enforcement
X •Field Representative
X Office of Counsel
X- Permit File
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Annie Betancourt
Ms. Valerie Boyd
Mr. William Hammond
Ms. Betsy Krant
Mr. Allan Milledge
Mr. Eugene K. Pettis
Mr. Nathaniel P. Reed
X Ms. Leah Schad
X Mr. Frank Williamson, Jr.
PROJECT: WELLFIELD FOR OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASS APPLICATION NO. 921204 -10
APPLICANT: OKEECHOBEE BEACH WATER ASSOCIATION INC PERMIT NO.
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
X Applicant's Consultant:
Virogroup Missimer Associates
Applicant's Agent:
X Engineer, County of:
Okeechobee
Engineer, City of:
Local Drainage District:
Building Dept.; County of:
Building Dept., City of:
COUNTY
BUILDING AND ZONING
OTHER
X Burton Conner,'P.A.
Dept of Natural Resources (K.Alvarez)
X Div of Recreation and Park District 7
F.G.F.W.F.C.
X Greg F. Rawl, P.G.
X John J. Drago
X Kissimmee River Coord. Council
X L.C. Fortner
X Michael Wm. Morell, P.A.
X Montgomery Watson, Inc.
Mr. Ed Carlson, Mgr., Nat. Audubon Soc.
S.W.F.R.P.C. Glenn Heath
X Stephen A. Walker, P.A.
X William D. Reese, P.E.
X Wolff Brothers Dairy, Inc.
EXHIBIT 7A