Lexplug logoLexplug

Harloff v. City of Sarasota

District Court of Appeal of Florida
575 So.2d 1324 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An administrative agency may accept a hearing officer's findings of fact but substitute its own conclusions of law, so long as competent substantial evidence supports the agency's legal conclusions.


Facts:

  • The City of Sarasota has operated the Verna Wellfield since 1966 to supply water to its residents and holds a consumptive use permit for this purpose.
  • Over several decades, the water table at the wellfield has dropped significantly, leading to the wellfield being unable to meet peak demand for the first time in 1989.
  • Roger Harloff farms 8,500 acres in Manatee County on land adjacent to the City of Sarasota's wellfield.
  • Harloff applied for a consumptive use permit to withdraw a substantial amount of groundwater for his agricultural operations.
  • Harloff intended to withdraw water from an aquifer that, while deeper than the City's, is geologically interconnected with it.
  • Expert testimony, accepted as fact, established that Harloff's requested water use would cause a drawdown that would 'seriously degrade the productive capacity' of twelve of the City's wells.

Procedural Posture:

  • Roger Harloff applied to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for a consumptive use permit.
  • The City of Sarasota challenged the application and requested a formal administrative hearing.
  • The District's staff reviewed the application and recommended granting a permit for amounts substantially less than Harloff had requested.
  • Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer issued a recommended order to grant Harloff a permit for the full amount he requested.
  • The City of Sarasota filed exceptions to the hearing officer's recommended order with the District's governing board.
  • The District's board accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact but rejected his conclusions of law, issuing a final order granting Harloff a permit for the lower amounts recommended by its staff.
  • Roger Harloff, as appellant, appealed the District's final order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a water management district improperly substitute its judgment for that of a hearing officer when it accepts the officer's factual findings but reaches a different legal conclusion regarding whether a consumptive use permit applicant met its statutory burden to prove non-interference with an existing legal use?


Opinions:

Majority - Altenbernd, Judge

No. The District's board was free to substitute its own legal conclusions for those of the hearing officer because the agency is responsible for the consistent implementation of state water policy. The court affirmed the District's decision because an agency has broad power to reject a hearing officer's conclusions of law to ensure uniform application of complex statutory concepts like 'reasonable-beneficial use' and 'interference.' The court identified two key legal errors made by the hearing officer: (1) improperly placing the burden of proof on the City to show interference, when the statute places the burden on the applicant, Harloff, to prove non-interference; and (2) incorrectly considering potential future improvements the City could make to its wells, rather than evaluating the impact on the City's superior, presently existing legal use permit. The District's final order, which corrected these legal errors, was supported by competent, substantial evidence.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle of administrative deference, confirming that an agency board retains ultimate authority over legal interpretations within its area of expertise. It establishes that while a hearing officer's factual findings are given weight, the agency board is the final arbiter of how its governing statutes and policies are applied, especially on mixed questions of law and fact. This decision reinforces the strict statutory burden of proof on permit applicants, preventing them from shifting the onus to existing users or the agency. For future cases involving competing resource claims, this precedent ensures that agencies can maintain consistent policy application and prioritize existing legal rights over proposed new uses.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Harloff v. City of Sarasota (1991) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Harloff v. City of Sarasota