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

Rule:

The Southwest Florida Water Management District has broad powers to reject conclusions of law which have been proposed by the hearing officer. Fla. Stat. ch. 120.57(1)(b)(10) (1989). If an agency rejects a proposed penalty, it must adequately explain its reasons with particularity. Fla. Stat. ch. 120.57(1)(b)(10) (1989). There is, however, no comparable statutory requirement that an agency state with particularity its reasons for rejecting conclusions of law that do not involve a penalty. 

Facts:

Roger Harloff appealed a final order of the Southwest Florida Water Management District granting him a consumptive use permit for water allowances which are substantially less than the amounts he had requested. In issuing its final order, the District accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact, but reached different legal conclusions. The District's board essentially followed the legal recommendations of its own staff, even though these recommendations had been rejected by the hearing officer. 

Issue:

Did Southwest Florida Water Management District have the power to reject conclusions of law which were proposed by the hearing officer?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court concluded the mixed question of fact and law presented was the extent to which Harloff was permitted to withdraw water that could interfere with the permit previously issued to a city. To obtain a permit under Fla. Stat. ch. 373, an applicant had to establish that the proposed use of water was a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in Fla. Stat. ch. 373.019(4); would not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water; and was consistent with public interest. Fla. Stat. ch. 373.223 (1989). Appellee had broad powers to reject conclusions of law which were proposed by the hearing officer pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 120.57(1)(b)(10) (1989). Also, courts gave great weight to agency interpretations of statutes governing their area of regulation. An agency's decision on a mixed question of law and fact was entitled to increased weight when infused by policy considerations for which the agency had special responsibility. The city's permit was an existing permit entitled to superiority.