Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina
This text of 576 So. 2d 771 (Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Dr. & Mrs. Howard SHERIDAN, Margaret Marino, Mr. & Mrs. Nick Mallous, Dr. & Mrs. William Wolffer, and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Appellants,
v.
DEEP LAGOON MARINA and State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Thomas W. Reese, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
*772 Joseph W. Landers, Jr. and Richard A. Lotspeich of Landers & Parsons, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee, Deep Lagoon Marina.
Carol A. Forthman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee, Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation.
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellee, Deep Lagoon Marina (the applicant), applied to the appellee, the Department of Environmental Regulation (the department), for a Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, dredge and fill permit, and for a certification of compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.; P.L. 92-500, as amended) pursuant to Section 1341 of Title 33, United States Code. The appellants, Dr. and Mrs. Howard Sheridan, Ms. Margaret Marino, Mr. and Mrs. Nick Mallous, and Dr. and Mrs. William Wolffer, who live near the site of the proposed project, petitioned for a formal administrative hearing to contest the preliminary decision of the department to issue the requested permit and certification. The appellant, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings. Following a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the department grant the requested permit, but, reasoning that she lacked authority to adjudicate the certification question, she declined to address the appellants' argument that the dredge and fill operation would not comply with the federal Clean Water Act. The department then issued its final order adopting the recommended order. In this appeal from the final order, we affirm that portion of the final order authorizing issuance of the state dredge and fill permit, but we set aside that portion of the final order in which the department determined that the certification question could not be adjudicated in the administrative proceeding. We remand for further proceedings on the appellants' challenge to the department's certification of compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.
In December of 1986, the applicant applied to the department for a Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, dredge and fill permit, and for a 33 U.S.C. § 1341 water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. The applicant proposed to conduct a dredge and fill operation in order to expand its existing full-service marina in Deep Lagoon, which is located in an arm of the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County, Florida. The application encountered a number of obstacles, not the least of which was the very poor water quality in the lagoon.
Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, provides that various permits, including dredge and fill permits, are not to be issued by the department "unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated." The subsection also directs that the department "by rule, shall establish water quality criteria for wetlands within its jurisdiction, which criteria give appropriate recognition to the water quality of such wetlands in their natural state." The wetlands water quality criteria applied by the department under 403.918(1) are the "Class III" water quality standards appearing at 17-302.560, Florida Administrative Code.
Water testing in Deep Lagoon revealed that oil and grease content in the water was twenty times the Class III standard, copper content was thirteen times the standard, lead was twenty times the standard, mercury was one thousand times the standard, and coliform bacteria was too numerous to count. Faced with these results, the applicant proposed to satisfy the water quality issue through resort to the provisions of Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides, in part:
If the applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the department shall consider mitigation measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant that cause net improvement of the water quality in the receiving body of water for those parameters which do not meet standards.
*773 The applicant proposed steps it would take to improve the quality of the water in the lagoon, though the steps would not raise the water quality to Class III standards.
In July of 1988, the department issued its Intent to Issue, which advised the applicant of its preliminary intent to issue the permit and certification. Thereafter, the appellants petitioned to intervene and requested a formal administrative hearing. At the hearing, testimony and other evidence was presented regarding various issues of concern, including the water quality issue. Following the hearing, the hearing officer issued a recommended order which recommended that the department issue a state dredge and fill permit to the applicant, subject to specified conditions. The hearing officer declined to address the appellants' challenge to the department's apparent plan to issue a certificate of compliance with the Clean Water Act, because she believed she lacked authority to address the question. The recommended order was subsequently adopted by the department in its final order, and the department indicated therein that it would issue the state permit. As to the certification question, the final order said "the issue cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding."
We find the department's decision to issue the state dredge and fill permit to be supported by competent substantial evidence and to be within the discretion delegated to the department, including the discretion delegated under the provisions of Section 403.918(2)(b). However, we disagree with the determination of the hearing officer and the department that the department's certification of compliance with the federal Clean Water Act cannot be challenged in a Section 120.57 proceeding initiated by a substantially affected person.
33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) provides, in part, as follows:
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit[1] to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State[2] in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this act [codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1312
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
576 So. 2d 771, 1991 WL 27225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheridan-v-deep-lagoon-marina-fladistctapp-1991.