Harloff v. City of Sarasota

Roger Harloff (plaintiff) owned 8,500 acres of Florida farmland and employed 1,000 workers either full-time or part-time. Harloff’s farms used irrigation to water crops. Although a drip system would have been more water-efficient, it was expensive, and irrigation systems were the industry standard in that area. Harloff’s farms were near the City of Sarasota (the city) (defendant). The city owned a well field with multiple water wells. All groundwater in that area was managed by a state agency, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the district) (defendant). The city obtained a permit from the district to withdraw six million gallons per day from the well field. Three years later, Harloff applied to the district for a permit to use an average of 15 million gallons per day from a deeper, nearby aquifer. The city objected, claiming Harloff’s use would reduce water flow to the aquifer feeding the city’s well field and interfere with its permitted use. The district set a hearing. The district’s staff suggested granting Harloff a permit for an average of 11.1 million gallons per day. The hearing officer found: (1) Harloff’s use would lower the city’s aquifer by 1.7 feet, (2) this would reduce the productivity of the city’s well field, (3) neither party had established how much additional impact the city’s well field could withstand before interference occurred, and (4) the city could deepen and upgrade its wells to avoid the problem. Because the city had not shown that Harloff’s use would interfere and it could avoid the problem with upgrades, the officer recommended granting Harloff’s full requested amount. The district accepted the hearing officer’s findings of fact but issued Harloff a permit for only 11.1 million gallons per day. Harloff appealed to the state court of appeal, arguing that the district had abused its authority by making a political decision about competing groundwater usage rather than a rational, scientific one.