IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 97-10228

MARY BARLEY, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of GEORGE M. BARLEY, JR.,
SHEILA MULLINS, BENJAMIN WERMEIL, and NATHANIEL
PRYOR REED, both individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
CLASS REPRESENTATION

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

For their Complaint, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, by their attorneys, allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class which they represent, are ad valorem taxpayers from Orlando to Key West who did not pollute the Everglades Protection Area ("EPA") or the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") , but are nevertheless assessed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD") for the major portion of the EAA's pollution abatement costs under S 373.4592(4)(a)(1994) of the Everglades Forever Act (EFA) and under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority, in direct contradiction to Article II, Section 7(b) of the Florida Constitution (commonly referred to as the "Polluter Pays Amendment" or "Amendment 511), which provides:

Those in the Everglades Agricultural Area who cause water pollution within the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades Agricultural Area shall be primarily responsible for paying the costs of the abatement of that pollution. For the purpose of this subsection, the terms "Everglades Protection Area" and "Everglades Agricultural Area" shall have the meanings as defined in statutes in effect on January 1, 1996.

2. On November 5, 1996, the Polluter Pays Amendment was approved by 68.1% of the voters.

3. The sole purpose of Amendment 5 was to require the EAA polluters, rather than the taxpayers, to pay for look of the cost to clean up the pollution that the EAA polluters cause.

4. On November 26, 1997, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that "polluters within the EAA as a group must pay for 1005; of the cost to abate the pollution they cause."

5. This action seeks a declaration that the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD pursuant to §373.4592(4) (a) (1994) of the EFA to abate EAA pollution and the additional ad valorem tax assessments 'levied under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, violate the Polluter Pays Amendment because the polluters within the EAA as a group are presently not paying for look of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, thereby resulting in innocent ad valorem taxpayers paying a significant portion of the EAA polluters' clean up costs.

6. This action also seeks a declaration that the §373 . 4592 (8) (a) (1994) of the EFA violates the Polluter Pays Amendment because it prohibits the SFWMD from raising additional revenues from EAA polluters, who are not currently paying for 1000-. of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, by precluding the SFWMD from levying special assessments against those in the EAA who pay the nominal $24.89/acre agricultural privilege tax under Section 373.4592(6).

7. This action also seeks a declaration that the Everglades Construction Project provided for in §373.4592(4)(a)(1994) of the EFA, and the funding for said project, be permitted to continue while the Legislature is granted a "reasonable period of time" to reallocate the relative contribution by innocent ad valorem taxpayers and EAA polluters toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project (phases I and II) pursuant to §373.4592(4)(a)(1994) and Article II, Section 7(b) of the Florida Constitution, in order to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment.

8. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class which they represent, seek a declaration of the rights of the parties and such other supplemental relief, pursuant to Section 86.061, Florida Statutes, as this Court deems necessary or proper.

JURISDICTION AND-VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Fla. Const. Article V § 20 (c)

(3) , in that this case involves the legality of a tax assessment. Jurisdiction of this case is also

predicated upon the declaratory judgment act, Fla. Stat. 86.011, 86.021, 86.061 and Fla. Stat. § 26.012(2)(e).

10. Venue is proper within this jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.011(1991).

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff MARY BARLEY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of GEORGE

M. BARLEY, JR. ("]BARLEY") , is a resident of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. BARLEY owns real

estate properties in the portions of orange County, Florida and in Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida

which are subject to the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment levied by the SFWMD in that these

properties lie within the Okeechobee Basin. BARLEY is required to pay the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax

assessment on these properties, as well as additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the

SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA

polluters, or else risk facing penalties for her failure to pay said taxes, which may include placing a lien

on the subject properties and even the potential loss of the subject properties at a public sale.

12. Plaintiff SHEILA MULLINS (,,MULLINS'') is a resident of Key West, Monroe

County, Florida. MULLINS owns real estate property in Key West, Monroe County, Florida which is

subject to the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment levied by the SFWMD in that her property lies within

the Okeechobee Basin. MULLINS is required to pay the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment on her

property, as well as additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's

general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, or else risk facing penalties for her failure to pay said taxes, which may include placing a lien on the subject property and even the potential loss of the subject property at a public sale.

13. Plaintiff BENJAMIN WERMEIL ("WERMEIL") is a resident of Coconut Creek, Broward County, Florida. WERMEIL owns real estate property in Coconut Creek, Broward County, Florida which is subject to the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment levied by the SFWMD in that his property lies within the Okeechobee Basin. WERMEIL is required to pay the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment on his property, as well as additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, or else risk facing penalties for his failure to pay said taxes, which may include placing a lien on the subject property and even the potential loss of the subject property at a public sale.

14. Plaintiff NATHANIEL PRYOR REED ("REED") is a resident of Hobe Sound, Martin County, Florida. REED owns real estate property in Hobe Sound, Martin County, Florida wl@ich is subject to the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment levied by the SFWMD in that his property lies within the Okeechobee Basin. REED is required to pay the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessment on his property, as well as additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, or else risk facing penalties

for his failure to pay said taxes, which may include placing a lien on the subject property and even the potential loss of the subject property at a public sale.

15. Defendant SFWMD is a special taxing authority established by the Florida Legislature whose Jurisdiction includes all or part of 16 counties, spanning from Orlando to Key West. Pursuant to § 373.4592 (4) (a) , the SFWMD has the authority to levy ad valorem taxes of up to 0.1 mill within the Okeechobee Basin for the purposes of design, construction and acquisition of the Everglades Construction Project. The SFWMD has levied the full 0.1 mill tax each year since 1994. Further, using its general ad valorem taxing authority, the SFWMD has levied additional ad valorem tax assessments on the Plaintiffs, and the Class which they represent, for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, such as operations and maintenance of the Everglades Construction Project, and research/monitoring activities relating to the abatement of EAA water pollution.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

16. This cause of action is maintainable on behalf of a Class under Fla.R.Civ.P.

1.220(b)(2).

17. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

affecting the parties to be represented in this action. The questions of law and fact common to the

Class predominate over any question which may affect individual Class members. Specifically, the key

question is whether the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD pursuant to

§373.4592 (4) (a) (1994) of the EFA to abate EAA pollution and the additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, violate the Polluter Pays Amendment because the polluters within the EAA as a group are presently not paying for 100% of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, thereby resulting in innocent ad valorem taxpayers paying a significant portion of the EAA polluters' clean up costs.

18. Plaintiffs, claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the Class are property owners within the Okeechobee Basin who have been forced to pay unconstitutional ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD or else risk facing penalties, which may include placing a lien on their properties and even the potential loss of their properties at a public sale.

19. Over 5.5 million people live within the SFWMD's boundaries. The overwhelming majority of these 5.5 million people live within the SFWMD's Okeechobee Basin, which stretches from Orlando to Key West. Although the exact number of Class members is unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time and can only be determined by appropriate discovery, the Plaintiffs believe that, and thereon allege, that the number of Class members is in the millions. The Class is, therefore, so numerous that joinder is impractical.

20. The named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who are required to pay the unconstitutional ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD because they own real estate

property located within the Okeechobee Basin of the State of Florida.

21. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interest of the Class and are competent and experienced in class action litigation. Each of the Plaintiffs are required to pay the unconstitutional ad valorem tax assessments because the polluters within the EAA as a group are presently not paying for 100k of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, thereby resulting in innocent ad valorem taxpayers ...such as the Plaintiff s paying a significant portion of the EAA polluters I clean up costs, and each has an interest in obtaining declaratory relief.

22. A Class action is superior to any other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, given the predominance of the common issues of law and fact relating to the constitutionality of § 373.4592 (4) (a) which affects each of the individual members of the Class. A class action is particularly appropriate here in that each member of the Class could not independently and efficiently prosecute the constitutional claims involved. For example, the 0.1 mill tax under §373. 4952 (4) (a) amounts to a $10 tax on a $100,000 piece of property, and said amount would be spent many times over in bringing an action challenging the constitutionality of this statutory provision.

23. The SFWMD has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all the members of the class, thereby making final declaratory relief concerning the class as a whole appropriate. For example, over 1 year has elapsed since November 5, 1996, when

the Polluter Pays Amendment was approved by 68.1 % of the voters. Yet, the SFWMD and the Legislature have done nothing to effect a change to the EFA or to carry out Amendment 5's intended purpose that "polluters within the EAA as a group must pay for 1000-. of the cost to abate the pollution they cause."

24. Specifically, although the Legislature has the right to reallocate the relative contribution by innocent ad valorem taxpayers and EAA polluters toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project pursuant to §373.4592 (4) (a) (1994), in order to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment, it has failed to do so and the SFWMD has failed to request to the Legislature to do so.

25. Similarly, although the SFWMD has the right to lower the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD pursuant to §373.4592(4)(a)(1994) which goes toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project, to attempt to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment, it has failed to do SO.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

26. The Everglades is the largest Subtropical wetland in the United States and is a unique and irreplaceable natural resource. The Everglades ecological system contributes to South Florida's water supply and serves as the habitat for a diversity of plants and wildlife not found anywhere else in the United States.

27. Beginning in approximately 1948, a large portion of the original Everglades immediately south of Lake Okeechobee was

drained for agricultural use and for flood control purposes. This area is known as the EAA and constitutes approximately 700,000 acres. Approximately 82-s of the EAA crops are sugar cane, 96 vegetables, 65k sod, 26 live stock, 1% rice and other crops. A majority of the EAA is located in Palm Beach County, with smaller portions in Hendry and Glades Counties.

28. The EPA, located just south of the EAA, consists of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (also known as "Water Conservation Area 111) Water Conservation Area.. 2, Water Conservation Area 3 (collectively known as WCAs) and the Everglades National Park. A map attached hereto as Exhibit A shows the location of the EAA, EPA and Surrounding Areas.

29. The SFWMD manages the water control structures, pumps, canals and levies in the EAA as part of its water management responsibilities. As part of its duties, the SFWMD uses its pumps and canals to drain the EAA during the wet season, to irrigate crops during the dry season, and to transport the EAA's nutrient polluted water southward to the EPA.

30. The end result of this water management scheme is that large quantities of polluted water from the EAA have resulted in the destruction of lower forms of aquatic life essential to the preservation of the sensitive ecosystems in the EPA, including but not limited to:

(a) Loss of the natural periphyton algae mat;

(b) Change from a diverse vegetative community to a monoculture of cattails; and

31. The SFWMD's own internal memoranda reveal that the SFWMD has known since 1973 that high levels of phosphorus in the agricultural runoff from the EAA is harming the ecological integrity of the WCAS.

32. The naturally occurring background concentrations of phosphorus observed at interior marsh sites are 5-7 parts per billion (ppb). The destruction of the periphyton algae mat, a critical part of the Everglades food web and a sign of a healthy Everglades ecosystem, begins to occur when.. phosphorus concentrations reach approximately 10 ppb.

33. The EAA drainage that has flowed directly into the WCAs for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997 has contained average phosphorus concentrations of 104 ppb, an amount 10 times higher than the Everglades ecosystem can tolerate.

34. The nutrient-polluted EAA drainage has caused an imbalance in the flora and fauna and violated the state water quality standard, Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) of the Florida Administrative Code, which provides:

"In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna."

35. Troubled by the rapid destruction of the Everglades ecosystem, in 1988 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen, sued the SFWMD and the State of Florida on behalf of the United States. The suit alleged that the SFWMD's and the State of Florida's refusal to enforce its own pollution laws against the EAA growers resulted in polluted water from the 11

EAA flowing into the Everglades National Park and the WCAS. 36. On May 21, 1991, Governor Lawton Chiles personally appeared in a Miami courtroom for a motion pending in the subject federal lawsuit and stipulated that the EAA's runoff was polluting the Everglades. Governor Chiles stated:

I am ready to stipulate today that the water is dirty ... We want to surrender. We want to plead that the water is dirty. We want the water to be clean, and the question is how we can get it the quickest.

37. Two months later, on July 26, 1991, the SFWMD executed a Settlement Agreement in the federal lawsuit, wherein the SFWMD admitted that:

The high levels of phosphorus in EAA discharges constitute the most immediate water quality concern facing the Everglades system. EAA drainage that flows directly into the Refuge contains average phosphorus concentrations ten to twenty times higher than background concentrations of phosphorus observed at interior mark sites.

    Excess phosphorus accumulates in the peat underlying the water, alters
    the activity of micro-organisms in the water, and disturbs the natural
    species composition of the algal mat (periphyton) and other plant
    communities in the marsh.

   The Parties agree that surface water entering the Refuge, including water
   entering through S-5A and S-6 pumping stations, contain nutrient levels
   that are causing imbalances in the natural populations of aquatic flora
   and fauna in violation of State water quality standards.

The parties agree that nutrient-polluted water threatens to devastate the ecosystems in the Park and Refuge.

38. In 1994, the Florida Legislature passed, and Governor Lawton Chiles signed into law, the EFA, Section 373-4592, Florida Statutes (1994). The Legislature acknowledged that the Everglades ecological system is endangered as a result of excess levels of phosphorous flowing into the EPA from the EAA:

The Legislature finds that water flowing into the Everglades Protection Area contains excess levels of phosphorus. A reduction in levels of phosphorus will benefit the ecology of the Everglades Protection Area.

Fla. Stat. § 373.4592(l)(d)

39. The 1994 EFA established a two phase approach for cleaning the EAA runoff water. The goal of Phase I is to reduce the phosphorus concentrations entering the WCAs from the EAA to approximately 50 ppb. The heart of Phase I is the Everglades Construction Project, which requires: (1) the purchase of over 40,000 acres of land, (2) the development of six man-made wetlands identified in the EFA as Stormwater Treatment Areas ("STAs"), and (3) related research and monitoring programs. A map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" shows the location of the STAs and an Overview of the Everglades Construction Project.

40. The goal of Phase II is to "expeditiously" utilize superior technologies with the Everglades Construction Project to reduce the phosphorous concentrations entering the WCAs from the EAA to 10 ppb by 2006, unless an alternative standard is set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by 2003.

41. According to the SFWMD's comprehensive study entitled the 1992 Everglades Swim Plan, the EAA is responsible for approximately 79%; of the phosphorus flowing into the WCAS.

42. Yet, under the EFA, the EAA growers are paying only approximately 13__ of the total cleanup project (25%, of Phase I, 0% of Phase II) , with the taxpayers footing the balance of the cleanup bill.

43. On November 26, 1997, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled the voters adopted Amendment 5 in order to effect a change to the EFA and to carry out Amendment 5's intended purpose that "polluters within the EAA as a group must pay for 100k of the cost to abate the pollution they cause."

44. Over 1 year has elapsed since November 5, 1996, when the Polluter Pays amendment was approved by 68.1% of the voters.

45. Since November 5, 1996, the SFWMD and the Legislature

have done nothing to effect a change to the EFA and to carry out Amendment 5's intended purpose that "polluters within the EAA as a group must pay for 100% of the cost to abate the pollution they cause."

46. Specifically, the SFWMD has not lowered the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD pursuant to §373.4592 (4) (a) (1994) , nor has it requested the Legislature to reallocate the relative contribution by innocent ad valorem taxpayers and EAA polluters toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project pursuant to §373.4592 (4) (a) (1994) , in order to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment.

COUNT 1

47. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs I through 46 as if fully set forth herein.

48. With regard to the Phase I project, the EAA growers are required under the EFA to pay only $233 million of the $922 million project. To comply with the Polluter Pays Amendment, the EAA growers, share for Phase I is at least $5S6.5 million.

49. The $556.5 million represents the EAA's minimum share of

the Everglades Construction Project capital costs, operations and maintenance, interest, research/monitoring and other costs related to the abatement of EAA water pollution. Both the capital and operations and maintenance costs attributable to the EAA are based on the EAA's relative contribution of phosphorus to the STA'S, assuming the EAA interests achieve their BMPs load reductions and financial incentives (34i reduction average for the period 19942014).

50. The $556.5 million owed by the EAA growers under Phase I includes only EAA pollution abatement costs, and it excludes non-EAA water pollution abatement costs, and other costs arising out of public use of STAs for recreation, hiring of displaced workers, Rotenberger restoration, WCA-2A hydropattern restoration, WCA-3A hydropattern restoration, and northern L-8 basin improvements.

51. The Phase II project, which involves "expeditiously" utilizing superior technologies with the Everglades Construction Project to reduce the EAA phosphorous discharges entering the WCAS, must be fully completed and operational by 2006. Nevertheless, the

EAA growers are currently not paying one cent toward the design, construction, or acquisition of the Phase II project (estimated up to $902 million by the SFWMD) , leaving the innocent taxpayers footing the entire Phase II cleanup bill.

52. To comply with the Polluter Pays Amendment, the estimated EAA growers, share for Phase II is approximately $541.2 million, based on the EAA, s relative contribution to the STA'S, assuming the EAA interests achieve their BMPs load reductions and financial incentives (34?6 reduction average for the period 1994.-2014).

53. The 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied on innocent taxpayers by the SFWMD pursuant to §373.4592(4)(a)(1994) of the EFA to abate EAA pollution and the additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, violate the Polluter Pays Amendment because the polluters within the EAA as a group are presently not paying for 100% of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, thereby resulting in innocent ad valorem taxpayers paying a significant portion of the EAA polluters' clean up costs.

54. Specifically, the EAA polluters should be paying $556.5 million under Phase I (not $233 million) and thus EAA polluters should be assessed an additional $323 million under Phase I to comply with the Polluter Pays Amendment. Further, the EAA polluters should be paying $541.2 million under Phase II (not $0) and thus EAA polluters should be assessed $541.2 million under Phase II to comply with the Polluter Pays Amendment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, seek such relief as set forth below.

COUNT II

55. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 54 as if fully set forth herein.

56. Section 373.4592(8) of the EFA provides the SFWMD with a way to raise additional Everglades restoration revenues by levying special assessments on property located within the EAA, and outside of the EAA, for water quality improvement via the construction and operation of stormwater management systems.

57. The EAA growers, via their nutrient-polluted drainage water, contribute to the need for such water quality improvement measures and, therefore, are deemed to benefit from such systems under Section 373.4592(8)(h) of the EFA.

58. However, Section 373.4592 (8) (a) (1994) prohibits the SFWMD from raising additional revenues from EAA polluters, including those who are not currently paying for 100t of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, by precluding the SFWMD 'from levying special assessments against those in the EAA who pay the nominal $24.89/acre agricultural privilege tax under Section 373.4592(6). Accordingly, Section 373.4592 (8) (a) (1994) violates the Polluter Pays Amendment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, seek such relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

59. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray for relief against the

Defendant as follows:

1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action;

2. Declaring that the 0.1 mill ad valorem tax assessments levied by the SFWMD pursuant to §373.4592(4)(a)(1994) of the EFA to abate EAA pollution and the additional ad valorem tax assessments levied under the SFWMD's,. general ad valorem taxing authority for other pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters, violate the Polluter Pays Amendment because the polluters within the EAA as a group are presently not paying for 100k of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, thereby resulting in ad valorem taxpayers paying a significant portion of the EAA polluters' clean up costs.

3. Declaring that Section 373.4592(8)(a)(1994) of the EFA violates the Polluter Pays Amendment because it prohibits the SFWMD from raising additional revenues from FAA polluters, who are not currently paying for 100% of the cost to abate the pollution they cause, by precluding the SFWMD from levying special assessments against those in the EAA who pay the nominal $24.89/acre agricultural privilege tax under Section 373.4592(6).

4. Declaring that the Everglades Construction Project provided for in §373. 4592 (4) (a) (1994) of the EFA, and the funding for said project, be permitted to continue while the Legislature is granted a "reasonable period of time" to reallocate the relative contribution by innocent ad valorem taxpayers and EAA polluters toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project (phases I and II) pursuant to §373.4592 (4) (a) (1994) ...and Article II, Section 7 (b) of the Florida Constitution, in order to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment.

5. Declaring that a "reasonable period of time, 11 as referenced above, shall mean by the end of the next regular legislative session plus the period of time in which the Governor must review bills passed by both houses.

6. Declaring that if the Legislature fails, within a reasonable period of time, to reallocate the relative contribution by innocent ad valorem taxpayers and EAA polluters toward the funding of the Everglades Construction Project (phases I and

II) in order to bring the EFA into compliance with the Polluter Pays Amendment, the Plaintiffs shall be entitled to other supplemental relief, pursuant to Section 86.061, Florida Statutes, including an

order requiring the Defendant to provide an accounting of and refund of all monies collected pursuant to §373.4592(4) (a) (1994) of the EFA and the Defendant's general ad valorem taxing authority for that portion of the pollution abatement costs attributable to EAA polluters.

7. Ordering reasonable attorney's fees to Plaintiffs;

B. Ordering reimbursement to Plaintiffs of the costs of suit incurred hereunder; and

9. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary or proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY

60. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

E. Thom Rumberger, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 0069480

Richard A. Keller, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 0946893

RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL

A Professional Association

Signature Plaza, Suite 300

201 South Orange Avenue

Post Office Box 1873

Orlando, Florida 32802

Telephone: (407) 872-7300

Facsimile: (407) 841-2133

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ion Mills, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 148286

Post Office Box 2099

Gainesville, Florida 32602

Telephone: (352) 378-4154

Facsimile: (352) 378-4154

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

013 7 055

.............................................................................

Figure I

Everglades

Protection

Area &

Surrounding

Areas

CHWW 2M OWOOM

AWWOMW #.a

AAW OL MWWNM

LA.CMAMM H.Oc"

Ask"

Shm...M.Tl.oo."

A- (STX.1

a - A-

LM" bawwww

bys.- A.1

L~&NCOWFI 0, Wow

a 10 20 30

Mae

F,Xiait ffAN

cti