Case Name: LEON COUNTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Texaco Trading and Transportation, Inc., and Colonial Pipeline Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-01-23
Citations: 666 So. 2d 1003
Docket Number: No. 93-2551
Parties: LEON COUNTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Texaco Trading and Transportation, Inc., and Colonial Pipeline Company, Appellees.
Judges: ZEHMER, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 666
Pages: 1003–1007

Head Matter:
LEON COUNTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Texaco Trading and Transportation, Inc., and Colonial Pipeline Company, Appellees.
No. 93-2551.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 23, 1996.
Herbert W.A. Thiele, Leon County Attorney, Tallahassee, C. Laurence Keesey, Tallahassee, and William L. Anderson, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Richard S. Brightman and Elizabeth C. Bowman, Tallahassee, for Appellee Colonial Pipeline Company.
Sherry A. Spiers, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leon County appeals the final agency decision of the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), concluding that developers of a pipeline and its petroleum storage facility were not required to obtain a binding letter of interpretation because the developments, both separately and combined, were not subject to development-of-regional-impact ("DRI") review under chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1991). We agree and affirm.
Texaco Trading and Transportation Co. ("Texaco"), plans to construct a petroleum' storage and tanker loading facility in Lloyd, Jefferson County, Florida. The total capacity of the proposed storage facility is 155,964 barrels. Rackleff, et. al. v. Dept of Community Affairs, (DOAH ease no. 89-6100R, January 4, 1990). To supply the storage facility, Colonial Pipeline Company ("Colonial"), plans to build a 45-mile petroleum pipeline from Bainbridge, Georgia, to Lloyd. In Florida, the pipeline will be confined to Jefferson County and will be approximately 22 miles in length.
On May 26, 1993, Leon County petitioned the DCA under section 380.06(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), to require Colonial to obtain a binding letter of interpretation regarding the DRI status of the pipeline itself and/or of the pipeline in conjunction with the storage facility. Specifically, the petition asserted that both the proposed pipeline and the storage facility met the statutory definition of a "DRI" as set forth in section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1991). The petition also stated that the pipeline, as an "industrial" or "distribution facility" under section 380.0651(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), in combination with the storage facility under rule 28-24.021, Florida Administrative Code, met the minimum numerical threshold requirements under the DRI guidelines and standards for a "multi-use development" under section 380.0651(3)®, Florida Statutes (1991). The Apalachee Regional Planning Council ("ARPC") also requested a binding letter of review for the project, essentially making the same arguments.
In a response to the requests, Colonial delivered a letter to the DCA stating, among other things, that Leon County had no authority to request a binding letter; that the definition section of chapter 380, i.e., section 380.06(1), was not self-executing; that the DCA could not require a DRI review of projects that were not DRIs under the guidelines and standards; that the pipeline project was not an industrial use; and that the pipeline and storage facility combined was not a DRI under the multi-use threshold.
On July 19, 1993, the DCA issued a response/final order rejecting Leon County's and ARPC's requests. The DCA relied on both its longstanding and often expressed interpretation of the guidelines and standards and Rackleff, supra, to determine that the pipeline was not included in the statutory guidelines and standards and therefore was not subject to DRI review. The DCA reasoned that pipelines are not specifically identified in the guidelines and standards of section 380.0651 and chapter 28-24, Florida Administrative Code, as a type of development which may be subject to DRI review and explained that for nearly the last twenty years, since their original enactment, it has interpreted the guidelines and standards as not including pipelines. Further, the DCA found that the storage facility, by itself, was to be constructed at less than 80 percent of the applicable numerical threshold for petroleum storage facilities. As such, under section 380.06(2)(d)l.a., Florida Statutes (1991), it was not required to undergo DRI review. The DCA rejected Leon County's assertion that the pipeline and storage facility together were subject to DRI review under the multi-use doctrine. In sum, the DCA determined that it lacked authority to require the developers to obtain binding letters for the project under section 380.06(4) because the pipeline and the storage facility, either separately or combined, were not subject to DRI review. This appeal followed.
It is well established that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight. PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988). The courts will not depart from such a construction unless it is clearly unauthorized or erroneous. PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, supra; AMISUB v. Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As to Texaco's component of the project, the DCA's finding that the storage facility by itself was not subject to DRI review was not clearly erroneous. "Petroleum storage facility" is a development specifically listed under the guidelines and standards of chapter 28-24, Florida Administrative Code, and as result, the numerical thresholds of section 380.06(2)(d) apply. Texaco has asserted that the facility would only store 155,964 barrels, which is approximately 78 percent of the applicable numerical threshold for petroleum storage facilities. Since the facility is below 80 percent of the numerical threshold, under section 380.06(2)(d)l.a. the storage facility is not required to undergo DRI review. Thus, we affirm that part of DCA's order.
As for the pipeline or the pipeline in combination with the storage facility, the DCA's reading of subsections 380.06(1) and (2) together and in conjunction with section 380.0651 to determine which developments may be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review, and its conclusion that the pipeline (alone or in combination) is not subject to such review, is also not clearly erroneous. Indeed, this reasonable interpretation comports with the oft-recognized rule that a specific section of an act comprehending an entire subject matter does not stand alone; rather, related provisions must be given full effect, and construed in harmony with one another when possible. See Florida Cable Television Assoc, v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14 (Fla.1994) and Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) ("It is axiomatic that all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.... courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another"); In re Opinion to the Governor, 60 So.2d 321, 324 (Fla.1952) ("it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that in respect to an act comprehending a whole subject matter no specific section will necessarily stand alone; and where a section refers to some other section or sections, or where some other section or sections may be applicable to a specific section, all must be considered and construed together ."). This is not a case in which omission of this project from development of regional impact review will allow it to proceed without regulation. Rather, the issue in this case is simply whether the agency acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in determining that it lacked the authority to require the developers to obtain binding letters of interpretation under the development of regional impact statute. Concern over the potential magnitude of a possible environmental disaster does not justify ignoring well established rules of law. Indeed, any project such as this will be subjected to a plethora of regulations and environmental protection statutes, whether or not it is considered a development of regional impact under section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The appellant conceded in the initial brief that a variety of federal and state permits would be required for this project.
Although section 380.06(1) broadly defines "development of regional impact," the DCA did not act unreasonably in concluding that the "statewide guidelines and standards" referred to in section 380.06(2) directly modify that definition, thereby limiting the projects which may be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review. The "guidelines and standards" incorporated by reference in section 380.06(2) are contained in section 380.0651. That statute lists the developments which may be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review when the numerical guidelines set forth therein are satisfied. A pipeline, such as the one in dispute in this case, is not a listed development. Nor does it remotely resemble any of the listed developments. The Department of Community Affairs reached the eminently reasonable conclusion that the pipeline could not be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review, and this Court should defer to that interpretation of these statutes. Thus we also affirm the remainder of the order concluding that the pipeline is not a development of regional impact.
AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
BOOTH, J., dissenting with written opinion.
. This order has not been appealed.