|
Introduction
The
Everglades Litigation Collection contains pleadings,
hearing and deposition transcripts, exhibits and
document productions from close to fifty lawsuits. The
major portion of its contents were gathered, however,
from two large-scale civil actions:
•
United
States v. South Florida Water Management District; (Case
No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER,
U.S.D.C.)
•
Cooperative
v. South Florida Water Management District. (Case
No. 92-3038;
3039; 3040, DOAH)
The original
federal lawsuit
|
Perhaps,
the most well-known of Everglades-related legal
actions, this complex
litigation
began in 1988 with a lawsuit filed by the United
States against the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) and the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (name
changed to the Department of Environmental
Protection, DEP) in United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.
In its complaint
the federal government sought enforcement of state
water quality laws protecting Everglades National
Park (Park or ENP),
"the largest and most important subtropical
wilderness" 1
in the United States, and the Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or LNWR).
|
Together, they
"constitute the southernmost and northernmost
remnants of the historic Everglades,"
2
The United States
alleged that ENP and LNWR were losing native plant and
animal habitat communities due to increased nutrient
loading from agricultural runoff. Moreover, according
to pleadings filed by the United States, for more than
a decade, Florida regulators had ignored evidence of
worsening conditions in the Park and Refuge, thereby
avoiding confrontation with powerful agricultural
interests. 3
United States v.
South Florida Water Management District, 847 F.
Supp. 1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992), aff'd in part and
rev'd in part, remanded, 28 F.3d 1563 (11th
Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1956
(1995), was an historic effort on the part of the
federal government to protect the ecological
integrity of the Park and Refuge from the
nutrient-polluted water which, the United States
alleged in its moving papers, would eventually destroy
them if not controlled.
The lawsuit, which
became known as the Everglades Case, received
national news coverage. The law library's Everglades
Litigation Collection contains over 1,400 pleadings
filed with the federal district court,
transcripts from depositions
of 65 expert witnesses and from over 20 court hearings,
and hundreds of thousands of pages from documents
produced during the course of discovery
in this case alone.
The Settlement
Agreement in the Federal Action
In 1991, after two and
one-half years of litigation, the United States and
the State of Florida reached a settlement
agreement that recognized the severe harm the ENP
and LNWR had suffered and would continue to suffer if
remedial steps were not taken. The 1991
Settlement Agreement, entered as Consent Decree by
Judge Hoeveler in 1992, 847
F. Supp 1567 (S.D. Fla 1992) sets out in detail
the steps the State of Florida would take over the
next ten years to restore and preserve water quality
in the Everglades.
In order to secure
federal court approval, the Settlement Agreement
preserved the rights under state law of the
agricultural interests to participate in and challenge
the final development and implementation of the
settlement's remedial program through the state
administrative process.
Thus, nonsignatories
had the opportunity to pursue state administrative
remedies under Fla. Stat. Ch. 120 if their substantial
interests were affected by implementation of the
Settlement Agreement's remedial program, i.e., the
final SWIM (Surface Water Improvement Management) Plan
by the SFWMD and DER. Several agricultural interests
filed challenges to the final SWIM
Plan in 1992 in addition to filing several in
state and federal fora.
State Administrative
Proceedings
The Settlement Agreement
was founded on the recently passed Marjory Stoneman
Douglas Everglades Protection Act (Douglas Act), Ch.
91-80, Laws of Florida, developed with the
involvement and consent of sugar interests. While sugar
interests participated in the passage of the Douglas
Act, nearly all agricultural interests (including the
sugar interests) filed challenges to the final SWIM Plan
in 1992 in addition to filing several lawsuits in state
and federal fora. These challenges were extensive and
varied, leading eventually to what many felt was
litigation gridlock.
Three "SWIM
challenges," DOAH Case Nos. 92-3038,
92-3039, and 92-3040, were consolidated by the
Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Everglades
Litigation Collection contains close to 1,000 SWIM
challenge pleadings
filed with the court, the transcripts from the depositions
of 166 experts and from 32 hearings,
144 mb of data and thousands of pages of documents
produced during discovery
proceedings in this action. Pleadings are also available
from related Rule and Permit challenges as well as EPA
administrative proceedings regarding NEPA.
The
Everglades Forever Act
Settlement
negotiations were held between several of the parties.
In 1993, a statement
of principles was made public.
The passage of the Everglades Forever Act in 1994 Fla.
Stat. ch. 373.4592, removed the underlying cause
of action of the administrative challenges and all
related lawsuits were closed by August of 1994 with
the exception of the original lawsuit (United
States v. South Florida Water Management District,
No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER).
In August 1994, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the 1992 Consent Decree and remanded
the case to district court for further consideration
in light of the Everglades Forever Act (28
F.3d 1563 (11th Cir. 1994), cert denied
115 S.C. 1956)).
Several hearings were
held in United States v. South Florida Water
Management District, No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER,
attempting to reconcile the old Settlement Agreement
with the new state law. Litigation continues, however.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians filed several lawsuits
against the federal and state governments.
Restoration
Everglades Nutrient Removal Project
Click for a more detailed view
Restoration
Constitutional
Amendments
Proposed
Constitutional Amendments and Revisions
November 5, 1996
Advisory
Opinion to the Governor-- 1996 Amendment 5
(Everglades) No. 90,042
Recent Developments
|
