## Facts

- Florida’s Water Resources Act of 1972 (ch. 373, Fla. Stat.) created a consumptive use permitting system requiring applicants to show (1) reasonable-beneficial use, (2) no interference with existing legal uses, and (3) consistency with the public interest.
- Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) adopted detailed water-use permit (WUP) rules for its multi-county region, including special rules for the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA), an area with stressed water resources.
- Local governments and other entities challenged multiple existing and proposed SWFWMD rules in consolidated administrative proceedings, asserting lack of delegated authority, conflict with statute or policy, vagueness, and unbridled agency discretion.
- After a lengthy evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld some rules but invalidated others, including parts of SWFWMD’s “14-criteria” rule implementing § 373.223(1), and certain SWUCA-related measures involving mitigation and alternative supplies (e.g., reuse and desalination).
- SWFWMD and aligned parties appealed the invalidations; the challengers cross-appealed rulings that upheld other rules.

## Issues

1. Whether SWFWMD’s WUP rules, including the 14-criteria implementation of § 373.223(1) and SWUCA special requirements, exceeded delegated legislative authority or conflicted with ch. 373 and related statutory provisions.
2. Whether challenged rules were impermissibly vague or conferred unbridled discretion through technical terms and case-by-case determinations (e.g., “feasible,” “adverse impact,” mitigation standards).
3. Whether an ALJ may invalidate district rules as inconsistent with statewide water policy, or whether that review is reserved to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
4. Whether SWFWMD could require measures tied to conservation and alternative sources, including investigation of reuse/desalination, conservation-oriented rate structures, and separate permitting of certain wholesale customers in SWUCA.

## Decision

- The court reversed the ALJ on several invalidated rules, holding they were a valid exercise of SWFWMD’s delegated authority under ch. 373 and consistent with § 373.223(1).
- The court affirmed the ALJ on the cross-appeal issues, leaving in place rulings that upheld other contested rules.
- The court held that DEP has exclusive authority to review district rules for consistency with statewide water policy; the ALJ erred to the extent he invalidated rules based on his own policy-consistency assessment rather than statutory authority or conflict.
- The court approved SWFWMD’s use of detailed criteria to implement the statutory three-prong permitting test, rejecting the view that specifying multiple criteria necessarily added unlawful extra-statutory permit conditions.
- The court upheld conservation- and alternative-supply-oriented requirements (including reuse/desalination investigation and conservation rate-structure tools) as reasonably related to statutory conservation and reasonable-beneficial-use goals.
- The court upheld SWUCA-focused regulatory measures, including permit-structure requirements affecting wholesale customers, as within SWFWMD’s authority to manage consumptive use in stressed areas.

## Legal Principles

- Water management districts possess broad delegated authority under ch. 373 to adopt detailed WUP rules that implement § 373.223(1)’s reasonable-beneficial use, existing legal uses, and public-interest criteria.
- A rule does not become invalid merely because it relies on technical terms and professional judgment; flexibility is permissible where the rule is tethered to statutory standards and administrable in practice.
- Review of a district rule’s consistency with statewide water policy is assigned to DEP; an ALJ may not invalidate district rules based on independent policy judgments where the statutory scheme commits that function to DEP.
- Regulatory measures encouraging conservation and alternative supplies (including reuse and desalination inquiries) can be valid components of implementing the statutory permitting framework and preventing wasteful use.
- Special permitting approaches for stressed regions (such as caution areas) may fall within the district’s delegated authority to regulate consumptive use to protect water resources.
- Pre-1972 water use does not create vested rights exempt from the statutory permitting standards; renewals remain subject to § 373.223(1).

## Conclusion

The court largely sustained SWFWMD’s comprehensive water-use permitting rules, emphasizing the legislature’s broad delegation under ch. 373, tolerating technical and flexible standards tied to statutory criteria, and assigning statewide water-policy consistency review to DEP rather than administrative law judges.


Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Charlotte County, 774 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)