Case Name: Dr. and Mrs. Constantino C. del CAMPO, et al., and Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and Ortega Island, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-06-21
Citations: 452 So. 2d 1004
Docket Number: No. AW-1
Parties: Dr. and Mrs. Constantino C. del CAMPO, et al., and Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and Ortega Island, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: NIMMONS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 452
Pages: 1004–1007

Head Matter:
Dr. and Mrs. Constantino C. del CAMPO, et al., and Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and Ortega Island, Inc., Appellees.
No. AW-1.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 21, 1984.
Rehearings Denied July 26, 1984.
Timothy Keyser, Interlachen; Wm. M. Howell of Howell, Liles, Braddock & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellants.
J. Alan Cox, Asst. General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Dept, of Environmental Regulation.
Robert M. Rhodes, Terry E. Lewis, and Cari L. Roth of Messer, Rhodes & Vickers, Tallahassee, for Ortega Island, Inc., appel-lee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
The controversy in this appeal centers around a proposed bridge which would connect an island in the Ortega River to the mainland in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued an order allowing Ortega Island, Inc., to construct the bridge. We reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.
Pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), and Rules 17-4.28 and 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code, Ortega Island, Inc. applied to the DER for a dredge-and-fill permit to construct a bridge across a man-made canal, known as the Stockton Canal. The bridge would provide access to Ortega Island, a 42-acre island located in the Ortega River and would serve a residential development to be constructed on the highest part of the island.
Appellants, a group of local residents joined by an environmental group, objected to the issuance of the permit and requested and received a hearing under Section 120.-57(1), Florida Statutes (1981). At the hearing, the appellants attempted to introduce evidence of the proposed development's possible environmental impact on the island. They were foreclosed from doing so by the hearing officer, however, who later concluded in his recommended order:
The bridge application must be granted or denied on its own merits and speculation about the utilization of the island for purposes of development need not and properly should not be considered as a part of this present hearing. Consideration of the island development is a matter to be examined on another occasion.
In its final order granting the requested permit, the DER upheld that conclusion. We hold that both the hearing officer and the DER erred in limiting the scope of the hearing in this manner.
As the appellants correctly note, under the view taken by the hearing officer and the DER, the vast sums of time, energy, labor, and capital which would necessarily be expended to complete the bridge would be wasted should the DER or other govern mental entities refuse to allow development of the island. We cannot approve risking the possibility of such an unconscionable waste of resources.
We also agree with appellants that the DER abused its discretion in failing to require proof of the financial responsibility of Ortega Island, Inc., pursuant to Rule 17-4.-11, Florida Administrative Code. From the record, it appears that the only information known about the developer, other than its corporate name, is that the permit application was signed by one Jack C. Davis. We consider this information insufficient to justify the DER's decision not to require proof of the developer's financial status.
We have considered the other points raised by the appellants and by the DER and have found them to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NIMMONS, J., concurs.
SMITH, J., specially concurs and dissents in part with an opinion.