IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA .

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, ) 1 m
FLORIDA, a municipal )
corporation, ) OCT p- /

Petitioner, )) i

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-1435

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER )
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, an )
administrative agency of )
the State of Florida, )

Respondent. )

MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BRIEF
AS AMICUS CURIAE

PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of

Florida, pursuant to Rule 3.7(k) of the Florida Appellate Rules,

moves the Court for an order permitting it to file a brief in

this cause as amicus curiae solely upon the question of whether

or not respondent has legislative authority to utilize a hydro-

logical theory known as the "water crop theory" which has been
raised in this cause by petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG,

FLORIDA, and for said motion shows unto the Court as follows:

1. Petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, filed

its petition for writ of certiorari in this Court on September 3,

1976, seeking to review an order of the Southwest Florida Water

Management District, respondent here, and accordingly, this motion

is timely filed pursuant to Rule 3.7(k) of the Florida Appellate

Rules.

2. The petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, has

raised in its petition before this Court the question of the

legislative authority of respondent, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, to promulgate a rule and to utilize such

rule in issuing consumptive use permits for the withdrawal of

water a hydrological theory known as the "water crop" theory.













Simply stated, the water crop theory is a concept which limits

the amount of water which can be withdrawn from an aquifer

according to the amount of acres of land owned by the applicant.

As an example, the SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

rule under attack in this cause [Rule 16J-2.11(3)] permits one

thousand gallons of water per acre per day to be withdrawn from

an applicant's land.

3. Pinellas County encompasses an area of Florida which
essentially has no terrain capable of supporting well fields

from which substantial fresh water supplies can be withdrawn.

Essentially, salt water has intruded into and underlies the main

geographic area of Pinellas County. Hence, Pinellas County is

required to seek and develop its fresh water supplies in other

counties of Florida and to buy and properly develop well fields

upon which its citizens depend for the necessary ingredient to

life, namely fresh water.

4. Because of its geographic, geolgical and hydrological

characteristics, any substantial question concerning the determina-

tion of the validity of a rule or regulation which involves water

withdrawal and/or relates water withdrawal to the amount of land

owned directly and substantially affects the public interest and

wellbeing of all citizens of Pinellas County, Florida. Pinellas

County in its development of its well fields has not purchased

substantial or large amounts of land but has maintained its

well fields on relatively small parcels of land located in

Hillsborough County and Pasco County. Accordingly, it is sub-

stantially in the public interest of the citizens of Pinellas

County for this Court to consider favorably Pinellas County's

application for appearance in this cause as amicus curiae.
5. Pinellas County has been the leader in the area of

controversy concerning the water crop theory. It has participated

in many presentations involving the water crop theory and in

particular the hydrological and legal aspects of the doctrine's













application. Your petitioner has appeared before the Joint

Administrative Procedures Committee of the Senate and House of

Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Florida on

at least four occasions in which the water crop theory was the

specific subject of inquiry.

6. Because of the substantial expertise in dealing with

the water crop theory under Florida law and the hydrological

expertise possessed by your Petitioner, this Court would be greatly

assisted in its determination in this cause by permitting Petitioner

to appear as amicus curiae solely upon the question of the author-

ity of Respondent to utilize the water crop theory in its issuance

of consumptive use permits. Petitioner would also show unto the

Court that it is in the public interest that this application be

granted.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court enter its order

permitting Petitioner to file a brief in this cause upon the sole

question involving the water crop theory as raised by Petitioner

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, in this cause.




JOfN T. ALLE Jt P.
"4)08 Central Avenre
Petersburg, FL /33711

and

W. GRAY DUNLAP
Pinellas County Attorney
315 Haven Street
Clearwater, FL 33516

Attorneys for Pinellas County


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for

Permission to File Brief as Amicus Curiae has been furnished by

mail to CARL R. LINN, ESQUIRE, City Attorney, 214 Municipal

Building, St. Petersburg, Florida, Attorney for Petitioner City

of St. Petersburg; and L. M. BLAIN, ESQUIRE, of Gibbons, Tucker,

McEwen, Smith, Cofer & Taub, P. O. Box 1363, Tampa, FL 33601,

Attorney for Southwest Florida Water Management District, this
3 -






















































































-Ld
20th day of October, 1976.



































































4 -