Sullivan v. Northwest Florida Water Management District

27 Fla. Supp. 2d 132
CourtState of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
DecidedAugust 31, 1987
DocketCase Nos. 84-4468 and 85-0129
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 132 (Sullivan v. Northwest Florida Water Management District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sullivan v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 132 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT T. BENTON, II, Hearing Officer.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Panama City, Florida, before Robert T. Benton, II, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 13, 1987. On April 17, 1987, the fifth and final day, the hearing convened in Blountstown, Florida, as an accommodation for certain witnesses. The parties filed proposed recommended orders on May 22, 26 and 27, 1987. The attached appendix addresses proposed findings of fact by number.

As required by Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984), the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) made application to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to remove the Dead Lakes Dam. In response to DER’s notice of intent to issue the permit, DER’s Exhibit No. 1, petitioners initiated formal administrative proceedings. In accordance with Section 120.57(l)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), DER transmitted the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The hearing officer before whom the matter was then pending entered a recommended order of dismissal, on grounds that the injury which petitioners claimed removal of the dam would inflict had already been accomplished, by what then seemed to be the more or less permanent opening of gates in a drawdown structure adjacent to the dam. DER’s final order rejected the hearing officer’s conclusion that the petitioners’ claim was moot, but followed his recommendation of dismissal, ruling that “removal of the dam will not affect the petitioners’ interest because they do not presently have access to navigable waters.”

On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, First District reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, with directions that “the hearing officer, and ultimately DER, in the event an inquiry into the zone of interest is deemed necessary upon consideration of the appellants asserted injury in fact, . . . access the appellants’ claim in the context of the appropriate statutory scheme.” Sullivan v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 490 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

ISSUES

Whether petitioners and intervening petitioners, or any of them, have [134]*134standing or party status because removal of the dam would case injury in fact of sufficient immediacy of a kind within the zone of interests protected by Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether ÑWFWMD’s permit application conforms to the requirements that Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1985), Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 17-3.001, 17-3.121, 17-4.242 and 17-4.290(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, set out? Whether NWFWMD has given reasonable assurances that removal of the dam would not cause water quality violations by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations below allowable levels, or by causing eutrophication or turbidity or an increase in heavy metals, including chromium or other battery constituents, in excess of allowable levels? Whether removal of the damn would be in the public interest, taking into account the diversity of aquatic life, including aquatic weeds, and whether fish spawning will be enhanced or hindered, whether heavy metals would reach Apalachicola Bay and affect oyster beds or marine productivity, what effects on the property of others would be, what the effects would be on fishing and other recreation, public safety for canoers and others, navigation generally, mosquito breeding and odors?

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Dead Lakes are a wide place in the Chipóla River. Near Wewahitchka, a forest of towering cypress trees once flourished in the periodic inundation of the Chipóla River. But when a sinkhole collapsed the river banks, widening the Chipóla River and the lower reaches of Stone Mill Creek, a tributary, to form the Dead Lakes, the trees growing in the riverbed also sank. Permanent immersion eventually killed many of the trees. The dead, moss-draped remnant the loggers left inspired the name of the lakes, which stretch for some ten miles through Gulf and Calhoun Counties.

The Rise and Fall of the Dead Lakes

The level of the Dead Lakes depends not only on how much water flows in, but also on how much flows out. Before man’s intervention, the rate of outflow depended all year round on the stage or height of the Chipóla Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River into which, just below the Dead Lakes, the Chipóla River drains, as well as on the stage or height of the Chipóla River above the Dead Lakes. When the Apalachicola River and, therefore, the Chipóla Cutoff were high, a backwater or damming effect tended to keep the level of the Dead Lakes up. Although pristine conditions no longer obtain, the relative elevations of the Chipóla and Apalachicola Rivers still affect the water level in the Dead Lakes, at certain stages.

[135]*135The Chipóla River drains approximately 1,280 square miles in northwest Florida and southeast Alabama. Alhough the Chipóla is spring fed, the flow of water into the Dead Lakes depends ultimately on rainfall in the basin, which varies seasonally. At Altha, the lowest flow every recorded was 330 cubic feet per second, and the highest flow on record there was 25,000 cubic feet per second.

The Apalachicola River, which arises out of the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, drains a much larger area. Its flow has been altered by the Jim Woodruff Dam and other dams further north that the Army Corps of Engineers constructed, and now uses to generate electricity, and in an effort to keep at least nine feet of water in the Apalachicola River channel, for the benefit of commercial traffic. Although intended to bolster low flows, the Jim Woodruff Dam was first used to impound a reservoir, Lake Seminole, for the purpose. In combination with dry conditions, the result was record low water levels in the Dead Lakes of about ten feet NGVD during the years 1954 through 1958.

Lakes Dammed

Alarmed at this change in the Dead Lakes, people in the area decided a dam should be built. Not one of the 88 owners of property on the lake objected. The Legislature created the Dead Lakes Water Management District (DLWMD), Chapter 57-1115, Laws of Florida (1957); and the DLWMD constructed a stop log, low head weir just below and parallel to the bridge on which State Road 22A crosses the water flowing out of the lakes. The 787-foot weir was completed in late 1959 and early 1960 on the right of way of the St. Joseph and Iola Railway, alongside the bridge, not far upriver from the point where the clear water leaving the Dead Lakes joins the muddy waters of the Chipóla Cutoff. The weir was designed to maintain the Dead Lakes at elevations up to 18.2 feet, in times of low flow. The stop log feature allowed adjustments so that elevations of less than 18.2 feet could also be maintained.

In 1962, the stop log portion of the weir gave way, and that part of the weir was reconstructed, as the remainder had originally been constructed, with interlocking sheet pile, which, braced and buttressed with I-beams, did not allow any drawdown of the lakes below 18.2 feet NGVD. No work has been done on the dam since 1962, and experts predict it will fail in about ten years if not attended tó.

The DLWMD installed four culverts about seven or eight feet high and twelve feet wide to the west of the weir in 1974, in order to restore [136]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Agrico Chem. Co. v. DEPARTMENT, ETC.
406 So. 2d 478 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Miller v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. REG.
504 So. 2d 1325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Village Park Mobile Home Ass'n Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business
506 So. 2d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc.
396 So. 2d 778 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Frank v. State
490 So. 2d 190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Sullivan v. NW FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT
490 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Fla. Supp. 2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-northwest-florida-water-management-district-fladivadminhrg-1987.