Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Florida Mulch, Inc. · Administrative Settlement / Consent Agreement
Florida Mulch Inc. Discharged Pollutants Into Bull Creek for Months
A St. Cloud mulch facility operated without required permits, repeatedly discharging industrial stormwater into a protected waterway. The EPA fined the company $35,000 after thirteen documented illegal discharge events.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
Florida Mulch, Inc. ran a mulch production facility in St. Cloud for decades, but from September 2019 to May 2020, it repeatedly discharged industrial stormwater into Bull Creek without the legally required permit. EPA inspectors observed tannic-colored water flowing from the facility’s outdoor operations into a drainage ditch leading to the creek. After identifying thirteen separate illegal discharge events, the EPA fined the company $35,000. The company only applied for permit coverage after regulators intervened.
See how a company avoided environmental permits for months while polluting a public waterway, and what finally forced them to stop.
13
Unpermitted discharge events into Bull Creek
$35,000
Civil penalty assessed by EPA
8 months
Duration of unpermitted discharges (Sept 2019 – May 2020)
24+ years
Years facility operated (since circa 1996)
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
Operating without permits and polluting public waters · 6 points
| 01 | Florida Mulch, Inc. operated a mulch production facility with outdoor raw material storage, chipping operations, mixing operations, fuel storage, and equipment staging without obtaining a required stormwater discharge permit. Inspectors observed tannic colored water in internal drainage ditches flowing to a discharge point on the facility’s southwest side. | high |
| 02 | From September 2019 to May 2020, the facility discharged stormwater associated with industrial activity without any permit coverage or No Exposure Certification. The discharges flowed through a drainage ditch and outfall directly into Bull Creek, a traditional navigable water and water of the United States. | high |
| 03 | EPA determined that thirteen specific days during this eight-month period saw rainfall events exceeding 0.5 inches, the benchmark for likely stormwater runoff discharge. Each of these days represented a separate violation as stormwater from the unpermitted facility entered Bull Creek. | high |
| 04 | The company never submitted a Notice of Intent for coverage under the existing Florida Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity. This failure violated Sections 301(a) and 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. | high |
| 05 | EPA and Florida Department of Environmental Protection conducted a joint Compliance Stormwater Evaluation Inspection on July 10, 2019. Despite these findings, the company continued unpermitted discharges for nearly another year before seeking authorization. | medium |
| 06 | Florida Mulch finally requested permit coverage on May 8, 2020, and received authorization under permit number FLR05I619 from FDEP. The company only acted after EPA sent a formal Notice of Potential Violation and Information Request on April 14, 2020. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
Years of operation before enforcement caught violations · 5 points
| 01 | The facility began operations around 1996, yet the first documented compliance inspection did not occur until July 2019. This represents more than two decades of operation before regulators verified permit compliance. | medium |
| 02 | The Clean Water Act requires industrial facilities to self-report by submitting a Notice of Intent for permit coverage. Florida Mulch never filed this notice despite operating an industrial facility with clear stormwater discharge points for years. | high |
| 03 | Even after EPA identified the violations during the July 2019 inspection, unpermitted discharges continued for another ten months. The system relies on voluntary compliance, and Florida Mulch only sought authorization when directly pressed by regulators. | high |
| 04 | Florida has EPA authorization to administer the NPDES permit program. This means state regulators were primarily responsible for ensuring facilities like Florida Mulch obtained proper permits, yet this facility operated outside the system until federal inspectors intervened. | medium |
| 05 | The consent agreement notes that Florida was given prior opportunity to consult with EPA on the matter. The settlement process included public notice requirements, but enforcement only began after years of apparent non-compliance. | low |
Profit Over People
Avoiding permit costs while continuing operations · 5 points
| 01 | Obtaining and maintaining environmental permits involves application fees, implementing best management practices, monitoring, and ongoing reporting requirements. Florida Mulch avoided all these expenses for the eight-month violation period while continuing revenue-generating industrial operations. | high |
| 02 | The eventual $35,000 penalty may be less than the cost of timely compliance and proper stormwater management infrastructure. The company operated without permits for at least eight documented months, potentially saving on implementation and operational compliance costs. | high |
| 03 | The facility continued its mulch production operations throughout the violation period, including outdoor chipping, mixing operations, and fuel storage. All of these activities generated revenue while the company discharged pollutants without authorization. | medium |
| 04 | Florida Mulch only sought permit coverage after EPA sent a formal Notice of Potential Violation. This reactive approach indicates the company treated environmental compliance as optional until forced by enforcement rather than as a fundamental operational requirement. | high |
| 05 | The company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent in June 2020 to correct violations and achieve future compliance, but this order explicitly did not resolve the company’s liability for civil penalties. The financial consequences remained separate from the operational fixes. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Pollutants flowing into protected waterways · 5 points
| 01 | Inspectors observed tannic colored water in the facility’s drainage ditches flowing to a discharge point. This discoloration indicates organic materials from mulch production operations entering the stormwater runoff headed for Bull Creek. | medium |
| 02 | Stormwater runoff from mulch production facilities can carry sediments, organic matter, nutrients from decomposing wood, chemicals from fuel storage, and other processing materials. Each of the thirteen discharge events released these potential pollutants directly into Bull Creek. | high |
| 03 | Bull Creek is defined as a traditional navigable water and water of the United States under Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act. Any pollutants discharged into this waterway can affect aquatic life, degrade water quality, and impact downstream water users. | high |
| 04 | The Clean Water Act’s objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Florida Mulch’s unpermitted discharges directly threatened this integrity through uncontrolled pollutant releases over an eight-month period. | high |
| 05 | The facility’s outdoor raw material storage, chipping operations, and fuel storage all presented potential sources of stormwater contamination. Without proper best management practices required under a permit, these materials could easily wash into drainage systems during rain events. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Settlement without admission of wrongdoing · 7 points
| 01 | Florida Mulch neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations regarding its conduct. The consent agreement allowed the company to resolve federal civil penalty liability without formally acknowledging the documented violations. | medium |
| 02 | The $35,000 civil penalty resolved only the company’s liability for federal civil penalties for the specifically alleged violations. The settlement did not address potential ongoing environmental harm or require remediation of any damage to Bull Creek. | high |
| 03 | If Florida Mulch fails to pay the penalty within 30 days, interest accrues at prevailing rates plus a 20 percent quarterly nonpayment penalty. However, if paid on time, interest is waived entirely, treating timely payment as sufficient accountability. | low |
| 04 | The consent agreement explicitly states that full payment of the civil penalty does not affect EPA’s right to pursue injunctive relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law. This preserves theoretical enforcement options but resulted in no such additional actions. | medium |
| 05 | The settlement includes standard provisions that it does not constitute an admission of liability that could be used in other litigation. This protects the company from collateral consequences while allowing it to move past the enforcement action. | medium |
| 06 | EPA reserved the right to revoke the consent agreement if it finds any information provided by Florida Mulch was materially false or inaccurate. However, the company certified its submissions were true, with potential penalties for false statements under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. | low |
| 07 | The penalties paid under this agreement are not tax-deductible for federal tax purposes. This prevents the company from further reducing the financial impact of the settlement through tax write-offs. | low |
Exploiting Delay
Operating for months after inspection before seeking permits · 5 points
| 01 | EPA and FDEP inspected the facility on July 10, 2019, documenting the lack of permit coverage and observing discharge points. Despite this official inspection, Florida Mulch did not submit a Notice of Intent for permit coverage until May 8, 2020, ten months later. | high |
| 02 | EPA sent a Notice of Potential Violation and Information Request on April 14, 2020, nearly nine months after the inspection. Only after receiving this formal notice did Florida Mulch finally apply for and receive permit authorization within weeks. | high |
| 03 | During the period between inspection and permit application, Florida Mulch continued operating and discharging stormwater without authorization. The company made no apparent effort to halt discharges or seek emergency authorization during this extended delay. | high |
| 04 | The company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent on June 16, 2020, to correct violations and comply with the permit going forward. This came nearly a year after the initial inspection revealed the problems. | medium |
| 05 | The final Consent Agreement and Final Order was not filed until April 28, 2025, nearly six years after the initial inspection. This extensive timeline demonstrates how long enforcement proceedings can extend, even for documented violations. | medium |
The Bottom Line
Minimal consequences for months of illegal pollution · 6 points
| 01 | Florida Mulch discharged industrial stormwater into Bull Creek without permits on at least thirteen separate occasions over an eight-month period. Each discharge event constituted a separate violation of the Clean Water Act. | high |
| 02 | The company only sought proper authorization after EPA sent a formal violation notice, ten months after regulators first documented the problem. This reactive approach suggests compliance was viewed as optional until enforcement became unavoidable. | high |
| 03 | The $35,000 penalty represents roughly $2,692 per illegal discharge event. For a facility operating since 1996, this financial consequence may not provide meaningful deterrence against future violations or similar conduct by other industrial facilities. | high |
| 04 | The settlement resolved only federal civil penalty liability for the specific alleged violations. It required no remediation of environmental damage to Bull Creek and included no admission of wrongdoing by the company. | medium |
| 05 | EPA’s enforcement relied on a single inspection to identify violations that had likely persisted for an unknown duration. The case illustrates the challenges of monitoring and enforcing environmental regulations when companies can operate for years without inspection. | medium |
| 06 | Florida Mulch now operates under proper permit coverage and entered an administrative order to maintain compliance. However, the case demonstrates how industrial facilities can violate environmental laws for extended periods before facing meaningful consequences. | medium |
Timeline of Events
Circa 1996
Florida Mulch, Inc. facility begins mulch production operations at 4754 North Kenansville Road, St. Cloud, Florida
July 2019
EPA and Florida Department of Environmental Protection conduct joint Compliance Stormwater Evaluation Inspection, documenting lack of permit coverage and tannic-colored water discharges
September 2019
Beginning of documented violation period with unpermitted stormwater discharges into Bull Creek
April 2020
EPA sends Notice of Potential Violation and Information Request Letter to Florida Mulch under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
May 2020
Florida Mulch submits Notice of Intent to FDEP and receives permit authorization under permit number FLR05I619, ending unpermitted discharge period
June 2020
Florida Mulch enters Administrative Order on Consent with EPA to correct violations and comply with permit requirements going forward
April 2025
Consent Agreement and Final Order filed, imposing $35,000 civil penalty and resolving federal civil penalty liability for alleged violations
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Inspection findings of unauthorized discharges
allegations
“Outdoor raw material storage, outdoor chipping and mixing operations, fuel storage, and equipment staging with several internal drainage ditches containing tannic colored water which flowed to a discharge point located on the southwest side of the Facility.”
💡 EPA documented visible pollution flowing from the facility’s industrial operations directly to a discharge point leading to Bull Creek
QUOTE 2
No permit coverage obtained
allegations
“The Facility is a mulch production facility (SIC Code 2499 and 2875) but had not submitted an NOI for coverage under the existing Permit or obtained a No Exposure Certification.”
💡 The company failed to seek any form of authorization for its stormwater discharges despite clear regulatory requirements for industrial facilities
QUOTE 3
Discharge destination confirmed
health
“Based on the CSWEI and due to the hydrology of the Facility and historic rainfall data, the EPA determined that stormwater associated with industrial activity generally discharged from the Facility through a drainage ditch and outfall on the southwest side of the Facility, to Bull Creek, a traditional navigable water and water of the United States.”
💡 EPA established that polluted stormwater flowed directly into a protected waterway subject to Clean Water Act protections
QUOTE 4
Thirteen separate violations identified
allegations
“Based on historic rainfall data available from the National Weather Service for this area, thirteen (13) days during the period of September 2019 to May 2020 had one or more daily rain events greater than 0.5 inches… the EPA has determined from the CSWEI, the hydrology of the Facility, and historic rainfall data that stormwater associated with industrial activity discharged from the Facility through a drainage ditch and outfall on the southwest side of the Facility on thirteen (13) days during the period of September 2019 to May 2020.”
💡 EPA quantified specific illegal discharge events, establishing that this was not a one-time accident but a pattern of repeated violations
QUOTE 5
Clean Water Act violations confirmed
accountability
“Therefore, the Respondents have violated Sections 301(a) and 402(p) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1342(p), by discharging stormwater without proper authorization to waters of the United States.”
💡 EPA formally determined that Florida Mulch violated federal environmental law by discharging pollutants without required permits
QUOTE 6
Settlement without admission
accountability
“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent… neither admits nor denies the factual allegations set forth in Section IV (Findings of Facts) of this CAFO.”
💡 The company avoided formally acknowledging the documented violations, a common settlement feature that shields corporations from admission of wrongdoing
QUOTE 7
Reactive compliance only after formal notice
delay_tactics
“On April 14, 2020, the EPA sent a Notice of Potential Violation and Information Request Letter (Information Request), pursuant to Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318, to the Respondent… The Respondent requested coverage under the Florida Multi-Sector Generic Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity, through the submission of a Notice of Intent to FDEP on May 8, 2020.”
💡 The company only sought required permits after EPA sent formal violation notice, nearly a year after inspectors documented the problems
QUOTE 8
Prior administrative order did not resolve penalties
accountability
“On June 16, 2020, Respondent entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA, Docket No. CWA-04-2020-0308, to correct violations of Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, at the Facility and to comply with the Permit. The AOC did not resolve Respondent’s liability for civil penalties.”
💡 Even after agreeing to fix the problems, the company remained liable for financial penalties, though it took years for final settlement
QUOTE 9
Penalty not tax deductible
accountability
“Penalties paid pursuant to this CAFO shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.”
💡 This provision prevents the company from reducing the financial impact through tax write-offs, though it does not increase the penalty amount
QUOTE 10
Limited scope of settlement
conclusion
“In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), Respondent’s full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations and facts specifically alleged above.”
💡 The settlement resolves only penalty liability for these specific violations and does not address environmental remediation or other potential legal consequences
QUOTE 11
Enforcement authority preserved
accountability
“Full payment of the civil penalty, as provided in Section VII (Terms of Payment) shall satisfy the requirements of this CAFO; but, shall not in any case affect the right of EPA or the United States to pursue appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law.”
💡 EPA technically retains the right to pursue additional enforcement, though the settlement effectively closes this matter with only a financial penalty
QUOTE 12
No ongoing environmental requirements in settlement
conclusion
“Nothing in this CAFO shall relieve Respondent of the duty to comply with all applicable provisions of the Act and other federal, state, or local laws or statutes, nor shall it restrict EPA’s authority to seek compliance with any applicable laws or regulations.”
💡 The settlement imposes no specific environmental remediation or monitoring requirements beyond general compliance with existing law
QUOTE 13
Standard for likely discharge
allegations
“In the EPA Supplemental Guidance to the 1995 Interim Clean Water Act Settlement Penalty Policy for Violations of the Industrial Stormwater Requirements, 0.5 inches during a 24-hour period is used as the general benchmark for likely stormwater runoff to result in a discharge.”
💡 EPA applied its standard methodology to determine when rainfall events likely caused unpermitted discharges from the facility
QUOTE 14
Facility operations and pollution sources
allegations
“At all times relevant to this action, the Respondent owned and/or operated a mulch production facility… The Facility, which began operations around 1996, has outdoor raw material storage, outdoor chipping and mixing operations, fuel storage, and some equipment staging.”
💡 The facility’s design with outdoor industrial activities created multiple sources of potential stormwater contamination that required proper management
QUOTE 15
Years between operation start and enforcement
regulatory
“At all times relevant to this action, the Respondent owned and/or operated a mulch production facility known as Florida Mulch Inc…. located at 4754 North Kenansville Road, St. Cloud, Florida 34773… The Facility, which began operations around 1996…”
💡 The facility operated for approximately 23 years before regulators documented permit violations, illustrating gaps in oversight and enforcement
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Florida Mulch, Inc. do wrong?
Florida Mulch operated a mulch production facility with outdoor industrial activities but never obtained the required Clean Water Act permit for stormwater discharges. From September 2019 to May 2020, the company repeatedly discharged industrial stormwater containing tannic-colored water and potential pollutants into Bull Creek, a protected waterway, without any authorization. EPA identified thirteen separate illegal discharge events during this period.
What is Bull Creek and why does it matter?
Bull Creek is a traditional navigable water and a water of the United States protected under the Clean Water Act. The stormwater from Florida Mulch’s facility flowed through a drainage ditch and outfall directly into this creek. Any pollutants in that stormwater could harm aquatic life, degrade water quality, and affect people who use the water downstream for recreation, drinking water sources, or other purposes.
What pollutants were being discharged?
EPA inspectors observed tannic-colored water in the facility’s drainage ditches, indicating organic materials from mulch production were entering the runoff. Stormwater from mulch production facilities can carry sediments, organic matter, nutrients from decomposing wood, chemicals from fuel storage, and other materials used in processing. Without proper management practices required under a permit, all of these potential pollutants flowed directly into Bull Creek.
How long did the illegal discharges continue?
The documented violation period ran from September 2019 to May 2020, a span of eight months. However, the facility began operations around 1996 and EPA inspectors did not conduct their first compliance inspection until July 2019. The company may have been operating without proper permits for much longer than the eight-month period EPA chose to prosecute.
Why did it take so long to stop the pollution?
EPA and Florida environmental regulators inspected the facility in July 2019 and documented the violations. However, Florida Mulch did not apply for permit coverage until May 8, 2020, ten months later and only after EPA sent a formal Notice of Potential Violation in April 2020. The company continued its operations and illegal discharges throughout this period. The final settlement was not filed until April 2025, nearly six years after the initial inspection.
What was the penalty for eight months of illegal pollution?
EPA assessed a civil penalty of $35,000, which amounts to roughly $2,692 per illegal discharge event. The company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The penalty does not require any environmental remediation or monitoring of Bull Creek to assess damage from the discharges.
Did Florida Mulch admit what they did?
No. As part of the Consent Agreement and Final Order, Florida Mulch neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations about its conduct. This is common in environmental settlements and allows companies to resolve enforcement actions without formally acknowledging violations that could be used against them in other legal proceedings or by private parties seeking damages.
Is $35,000 enough to deter this kind of behavior?
The adequacy of environmental penalties is often debated. In this case, the $35,000 fine may be less than the cost Florida Mulch would have incurred to obtain permits, implement required stormwater management practices, conduct monitoring, and maintain compliance during the eight-month violation period. If penalties are routinely smaller than compliance costs, companies may view them as just another business expense rather than a meaningful deterrent.
What happened to the pollution already in Bull Creek?
The settlement does not require Florida Mulch to conduct any environmental assessment or remediation of Bull Creek. The Consent Agreement resolves only the company’s liability for civil penalties for the specific violations alleged. Any environmental damage from the thirteen discharge events remains unaddressed by this enforcement action.
What can I do if I am concerned about water pollution in my area?
You can report suspected water pollution to your state environmental agency or EPA Region office. The Clean Water Act includes citizen suit provisions that allow private individuals to bring enforcement actions against polluters in some circumstances. You can also support organizations that monitor water quality, advocate for stronger enforcement of environmental laws, and participate in public comment periods when EPA proposes settlements like this one.
You can visit Florida Mulch’s website by clicking on this link: https://floridamulchonline.com/
You can read the consent agreement between Florida Mulch and the EPA by visiting the EPA’s website: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/5B331B2BF374FB5A85258C7A006F2913/$File/Florida%20Mulch,%20Inc.%20in%20St.%20Cloud,%20FL%20CAFO%204-28-25%20CWA-04-2024-1021(b).pdf
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
