## Facts

- A regional water management district issued the City a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average of 6 million gallons per day from a municipal wellfield supplying potable water to about 75,000 residents.
- A large agricultural landowner later applied for a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average of 15 million gallons per day from a deeper, nearby aquifer to irrigate farmland.
- The City objected, asserting the proposed withdrawal would reduce flow to the aquifer supporting the municipal wellfield and interfere with the City’s permitted use.
- In a formal administrative hearing, the hearing officer accepted the hydrologic evidence and found the proposed agricultural pumping would lower the aquifer supplying the municipal wellfield by about 1.7 feet and reduce wellfield productivity.
- The hearing officer also found neither party established the amount of additional impact the wellfield could sustain before prohibited “interference” would occur, and found the City could mitigate by deepening and upgrading its wells.
- The hearing officer recommended issuing the full requested 15 million gallons per day.
- District staff recommended a lesser quantity, and the District’s governing board adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact but rejected his legal conclusions and recommendation, issuing a permit for an average of 11.1 million gallons per day.
- The agricultural applicant appealed the final administrative order, arguing the governing board improperly substituted its judgment for the hearing officer and acted arbitrarily or for political reasons.

## Issues

1. Whether an agency governing board may accept a hearing officer’s findings of fact yet reject the hearing officer’s legal conclusions and recommended disposition in a consumptive use permitting case.
2. Whether the agency’s reduced permit allocation was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by competent substantial evidence given the accepted factual findings.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the final administrative order issuing a consumptive use permit limited to an average of 11.1 million gallons per day.
- The court held the governing board could accept the hearing officer’s findings of fact but substitute different legal conclusions and a different allocation decision, so long as supported by competent substantial evidence and within statutory authority.
- The court found competent substantial evidence supported the board’s more conservative allocation in light of projected drawdown and impacts on the municipal wellfield.
- The court rejected the claim that the board’s action was an improper political override or arbitrary decision.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida administrative law, an agency must generally accept a hearing officer’s findings of fact if supported by competent substantial evidence, but the agency may reject or modify the hearing officer’s conclusions of law and recommended action.
- An agency’s substituted legal conclusions and policy choices are valid if supported by competent substantial evidence in the record and consistent with the agency’s statutory authority.
- Appellate review of technically complex resource-allocation decisions is limited; courts do not reweigh evidence and will defer to the agency’s expertise when the decision falls within the range supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the water management district’s decision to limit an agricultural consumptive use permit to 11.1 million gallons per day, ruling the agency could depart from the hearing officer’s legal conclusions and recommended allocation while accepting factual findings, because the agency’s alternative conclusions were supported by competent substantial evidence and within its policymaking authority.


Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1991)