Manasota-88, Inc. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation
Docket: No. 88-197
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 23, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
Manasota-88, Inc. appeals the Department of Environmental Regulation’s (DER) amendment to Rule 17-4.245(8)(b), raising two primary challenges: (1) DER allegedly exceeded its delegated legislative authority in adopting the amendment, and (2) the amended rule is vague and grants excessive discretion to DER staff. The court remands the matter for further proceedings.
In 1983, the Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) classified Florida’s groundwater into four categories: two nonpotable (G-III and G-IV) and two potable (G-I and G-II), alongside implementing primary and secondary drinking water standards. Initially, secondary standards applied only to tap water in community systems, excluding private wells and similar facilities. By 1983, ERC mandated that certain installations discharging into Class G-II groundwater meet both standards but granted existing installations temporary exemptions from secondary standards, requiring them to install monitoring wells.
DER was tasked with evaluating the implications of enforcing secondary standards on existing installations. After reviewing data and conducting workshops, DER found significant variability in groundwater parameters and determined that enforcing compliance would be financially burdensome. Consequently, DER recommended that exemptions from secondary standards be maintained unless necessary to protect drinking water sources, with a provision allowing dischargers to avoid compliance if they could demonstrate that the costs outweighed the benefits.
On November 6, 1987, DER proposed an amendment to Rule 17-4.245 to reflect these recommendations, which was adopted following a public hearing on December 17, 1987, and filed on January 22, 1988. Manasota-88, along with other environmental groups, was granted party status in the rule-making process and subsequently filed this direct appeal, asserting that the rule’s adoption represents final agency action.
Agency action in Florida's rule-making proceedings becomes final upon the rule's adoption and filing with the Secretary of State, after which adversely affected parties have 30 days to seek judicial review. The standard of review for direct appeals from rule-making proceedings differs from that for appeals from hearings by a hearing officer. Specifically, rule-making proceedings under section 120.54(3)(a) are categorized as quasi-legislative, which do not adhere to the competent substantial evidence standard used in quasi-judicial proceedings. Instead, the appellate court must uphold the validity of an agency's rule if it is reasonably related to the enabling legislation and not arbitrary or capricious, as established in *General Telephone Company of Florida v. Public Service Commission*.
In reviewing rule-making actions, the court assesses whether the agency considered all relevant factors, engaged in good faith consideration, and used rational judgment in reaching its final decision. The factors in this process include the rulemaker's experience, expert advice, technical literature, ongoing experiments, and predictions, rather than formal testimony and exhibits used in adjudicatory hearings. The appellate record from rule-making typically includes the agency's initial proposal, empirical findings, expert advice, responses from interested parties, and the final rule with justifications and explanations of its basis. A complete record should also document the relevant facts considered and illustrate how the rulemaker addressed each factor throughout the policy formation process.
The record on appeal includes the transcript from a December 17, 1987 hearing, two technical reports, and a certification package filed with the Secretary of State on January 22, 1988. The certification package contains the amended rule, a summary of the rule, a brief account of the December 17 hearing, and a one-page statement outlining the history of the rule amendment. However, it lacks the detailed written statement justifying the rule, as required by section 120.54(11)(b) of Florida Statutes. Additionally, the record does not reflect how the rulemaker addressed each relevant factor or the rationale for their final decisions. Due to these deficiencies, the Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) rule amendment (rule 17-4.245(8)(b)) is deemed legally insufficient. Consequently, the ruling holds the amendment invalid and ineffective, directing DER to comply with section 120.54(11)(b) and to create a more comprehensive record in line with the opinion referenced in Adam Smith. Judges Zehmer and Barfield concur with this decision.
