notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

swfwmd.state.fl.us

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

STYLE/CASE NO. COURT ATTORNEY ACTION DESCRIPTION/STATUS

Judgment on January 28, 2011.

9

SWFWMD v.

Milmack,

Inc./Case No. 53-

2011-CA-000910-

0000-00

10 th Judicial Circuit,

Polk County

A. Brennan Complaint and Petition for

Enforcement of ACO SWF

2010-018

On January 1, 2003, the District issued Water Use Permit (“WUP”)

No. 20010392.005 (the “Permit”) to Milmack, Inc., (“Permittee”)

authorizing withdrawals of 259,900 gallons per day (“gpd”) on an

annual average basis and 282,700 gpd on a drought annual

average basis from one well for golf course irrigation in a

community known as Oakwood, located in Polk County. On

February 18, 2009, District staff issued Permittee a Notice of Non-

Compliance advising that the annual average quantity withdrawn for

the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008 was 387,575 gpd,

or approximately 30% in excess of the permitted quantity.

Permittee responded to the Notice of Non-Compliance, claiming

that it had initiated litigation with the developer and engineer of the

community concerning damage to the golf course and its irrigation

system allegedly caused by the surface water management system

serving the development. Permittee’s withdrawals continued to

exceed its permitted quantity. On September 14, 2009, the District

mailed a proposed Consent Order to Permittee assessing $8,687 in

penalties and costs for exceeding its permitted drought annual

average quantities from April through July, 2009. Permittee

responded to the proposed Consent Order on October 14, 2009,

reiterating its involvement in litigation concerning the surface water

management system. Permittee requested that the District impose

no penalty for prior overpumpage, which request was rejected.

District staff met with Permittee and its representatives on October

26, 2009, to discuss possibilities for resolving the overpumpage,

and agreed to a 90-day extension of time to calibrate the well’s

meters, to employ additional compliance measures, and to respond

to the District’s proposed Consent Order. District staff and

Permittee were unable to reach a resolution of this matter.

This matter was then presented to the District’s Governing Board at

its June 2010 meeting. The Governing Board requested that District

staff work with Permittee for 30 days in an attempt to make

progress in resolving the compliance matter, and report back to the

Governing Board at its July meeting. The matter was again

presented to the Governing Board at its July 2010 meeting.

Because substantial progress had not been made in resolving this

matter, the Governing Board authorized initiation of litigation against

Permittee. On August 19, 2010, the District issued an

Administrative Complaint and Order (ACO), which became final

Order No. SWF 10-018 on September 21, 2010, when permittee did

not respond. On March 11, 2011, the District filed a civil

enforcement action in Circuit Court to enforce the terms of the ACO.

During the pendency of litigation, District staff and Permittee

7

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines