## Facts

- Greene applied to the St. Johns River Water Management District for a consumptive use permit (CUP) to withdraw groundwater from an existing well for bottling and distributing drinking water.
- Marion County objected, asserting the withdrawal was not in the public interest and conflicted with the County’s plans and regulations.
- The District published notice of intent to approve the CUP, and Marion County requested a formal administrative hearing.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted the hearing.
- Greene presented expert testimony that the proposed withdrawal satisfied the statutory CUP criteria.
- Marion County proffered testimony focused on local land-use regulation, asserting the bottling operation required a county special use permit (SUP) that Greene had not obtained.
- The ALJ issued a recommended order concluding the CUP should be approved.
- The District issued a final order adopting the ALJ’s findings and conclusions (with one additional conclusion of law) and approved the CUP.
- Marion County appealed the District’s final order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the District misapplied § 373.223(1), Florida Statutes, in approving the CUP (reasonable-beneficial use, no interference with existing legal uses, and consistency with the public interest).
2. Whether the asserted lack of a county special use permit (SUP) and related local land-use concerns required denial of the CUP or controlled the “public interest” determination under § 373.223(1)(c).
3. Whether the District’s final order reflected a clearly erroneous interpretation of law under the standard governing appellate review of agency action.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the District’s final order approving the CUP.
- The court held the ALJ committed no reversible error, and the District’s adoption of the recommended order was proper.
- Applying the agency-order review standard, the court concluded the agency’s legal interpretation was not clearly erroneous.
- The court accepted that competent substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that the statutory CUP criteria were met.
- The court rejected the County’s position that alleged noncompliance with county zoning/SUP requirements mandated denial of the CUP.

## Legal Principles

- A CUP under § 373.223(1), Florida Statutes, requires proof of (1) reasonable-beneficial use, (2) no interference with existing legal uses, and (3) consistency with the public interest.
- On judicial review of a final agency order, the appellate court evaluates whether the agency’s interpretation of law is clearly erroneous and does not reweigh evidence where findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.
- State water-use permitting under Chapter 373 applies state-law criteria; asserted noncompliance with local land-use approvals (including an SUP) is not, by itself, a statutory bar to CUP issuance.
- Local plans and regulations may be raised in argument, but they do not conclusively define the “public interest” determination required by § 373.223(1)(c) for CUP approval.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the water management district’s approval of a consumptive use permit for groundwater withdrawal for bottling because the statutory criteria in § 373.223(1) were supported by competent substantial evidence and the agency’s legal interpretation was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the County’s zoning-based objections and asserted special-use-permit requirement.


Marion County v. Greene, 5 So. 3d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2009)