Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, MANASOTA-88
| Decision Date | 08 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AQ-480,MANASOTA-88,INC,AQ-480 |
| Citation | 441 So.2d 1109 |
| Parties | , and Booker Creek Preservation, Inc., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and Gardinier, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas W. Reese, St. Petersburg, for appellant Manasota-88, Inc.
Peter B. Belmont, St. Petersburg, for appellant Booker Creek Preservation, Inc.
William W. Deane, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Environmental Regulation.
Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., and Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., of Holland & Knight, Lakeland, for appellee Gardinier, Inc.
Stephen W. Metz, Tallahassee; Robert M. Rhodes & Terry E. Lewis, Tallahassee, for appellee, amicus curiae.
Appellants are private, non-profit environmental protection corporations that filed a joint petition with the Department of Environmental Regulation requesting party status in the non-adversary, free-form licensing proceedings between DER and Gardinier Inc. DER denied the request, and we affirm.
Gardinier owns and operates a phosphoric chemical plant in Hillsborough County at the mouth of the Alafia River. It is currently proposing major modifications to the plant and has filed numerous permit applications pursuant to the licensing provisions of § 120.60. DER has not yet issued a notice of proposed agency action on those applications. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 17-1.62.
Appellants derive their theory of entitlement to intervene at this stage from several statutory provisions. First, § 120.60(2) which provides in part that:
When an application for a license is made as required by law, the agency shall conduct the proceedings required with reasonable dispatch, ...
Second, § 120.52(8), which provides:
(8) "Licensing" means the agency process respecting the issuance, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, or amendment of a license or imposition of terms for the exercise of a license.
Appellants interpret the quoted statutes as providing that licensing proceedings commence when an application for permitting is filed. Appellants then assume such is the case and assert that § 403.412(5) is a provision bestowing party status upon them by the definition found in § 120.52(10)(b). 1 Section 403.412(5) provides:
(5) In any administrative, licensing, or other proceedings authorized by law for the protection of the air, water, or other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction, the Department of Legal Affairs, a political subdivision or municipality of the state, or a citizen of the state shall have standing to intervene as a party on the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted has or will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state. (e.s.)
Since appellants have filed a pleading asserting that Gardinier's proposed activities will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the state's environment, they argue that their request for party status should be granted.
In defending its denial, DER relies heavily upon this court's recent opinion in Greene v. Department of Natural Resources, 414 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). According to DER, appellants are attempting to use Chapter 403 to initiate a § 120.57 proceeding which is prohibited by Greene. While we affirm the denial of the request for party status at this stage of the activity between DER and Gardinier, we find DER's interpretation of Greene to be unnecessarily broad as discussed more fully below.
We affirm the denial of the petition because we discern no legislative intent in § 403.412(5) to permit intervention during the free-form, informal process between the time an application is filed and the notice of proposed agency action is issued. If the proposed agency action is to deny the applications, and the applicant does not request further proceedings under Chapter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONFED. OF SOUTHWEST FL., INC. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc.
...a verified petition asserting that the challenged activity would injure Florida's resources. See Manasota-88, Inc., v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 441 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Standing is much more restrictive under the terms of the 2002 revision of the statute. Subsection (6) ......
-
ECOSWF, INC. v. State
...air, water, or other natural resources of the state." § 403.412(5), Florida Statutes (2000). In Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 441 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court held that a citizen has standing to "intervene" as described in section 403.412(5), whe......
-
Manasota-88, Inc. v. Gardinier, Inc.
...proceeding. First, as to the "agency action" issue, in the prior appearance of this case, Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 441 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we held that Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes (1983), does not permit intervention "during the free-......
- Jozwiak v. Leonard
-
"Intervene" means "intervene": the Florida Legislature revises citizen standing under F.S. s. 403.412(5).
...However, DER rejected that interpretation in its final order, based on dictum in Manasota-88 v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 441 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), (6) which had been decided while the recommended order was pending at the agency. DER determined that under Manasota-8......