Florida Sugar Cane League v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 617 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau v. U.S., 115 S.Ct. 1956 (1995).
Miccosukee Tribe v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 677 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). When Florida DEP rejected the Miccosukee Tribe’s initial petition for rulemaking, the Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the Florida DEP decision.
In Miccosukee Tribe v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 656 So.2d 505 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995), the court concluded that only the Environmental Regulation Commission had the authority to review the Tribe’s petition, based on sec. 403.804, Fla. Stat. which grants the ERC the exclusive standard setting authority of the Florida DEP. In a subsequent decision, however, the same court ignored the Tribe’s demands for immediate rulemaking; instead acknowledging the EFA, and the Florida DEP assertions that rulemaking was proceeding expeditiously with rule development in accordance with the EFA timelines.
Miccosukee Tribe v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 677 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Initially, the case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court based on representations by the U.S. EPA that the EFA did not change water quality standards. Miccosukee Tribe v. U.S., Case No. 95-0533-CIV-DAVIS (July 26, 1995). On appeal, the case was remanded to the lower court for further fact-finding proceedings. Miccosukee Tribe v. U.S., 105 F.3d 599 (11th Cir. 1997).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Determination Concerning the Everglades Forever Act,” (January 30, 1998) p.10-14, 29.
Miccosukee Tribe v. U.S., Case No. 95-0533-CIV-DAVIS (Omnibus order, September 11, 1998).
Initiative Petition Filed With Secretary of State of Florida (March 26, 1996)
Barley et. al. v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. CI 97-10228 (Fla. 9th Cir., 1998).
Barley et. al. v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. CI 97-10228, Order Granting Dependant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Fla. 9th Cir., October 22, 1998).
Barley v. South Florida Water Management District, Fla. 5th DCA, Case No. 5D98-3178 (August 25, 2000).
Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, § 309(1); Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-303, § 528.
Fla. Stat. ch. 373 (1999); 1949 Laws of Florida ch. 25270 (1949) (creating the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, the predecessor agency to the South Florida Water Management District).
Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §701
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4331
In 1999, the Florida Legislature passed a landmark piece of legislation (the CERP Act), authorizing the Water Management District to serve as local sponsor to the proposed Everglades restoration efforts
1999 Fla. Laws ch. 143 (1999) (codified at Fla. Stat. §§373.026 and 373.1501 (1999).
U.S. v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER (Joint Motion of the United States of America, The South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Approval of Modifications to the Settlement Agreement Entered as Consent Decree, June 16, 1995).
U.S. v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Motion to Invalidate the Everglades Forever Act (EFA), §373.4592, Fla. Stat. as an Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract, August 8, 1995).
U.S. v. South Florida Water Management District, Case No. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER (Order Denying Motion to Invalidate the Everglades Forever Act, October 13, 1998). In this order, Judge Hoeveler made four important rulings: (1) the Tribe, as an intervenor, was not part of any contractual relationship regarding the Settlement Agreement and therefore lacked standing to raise the argument; (2) even if a contractual relationship existed, the EFA was not intended to impair the agreement; and (3) there were legitimate public purposes in enacting the EFA, which provides a funding mechanism for Everglades restoration; and (4) the enactment of the EFA was reasonable, and constituted a broad and far-reaching effort to solve problems on a larger scale than encompassed by the Consent Decree.
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 96-3151, ER FALR 98:119 (Florida Department of Environmental Protection Final Order, April 20, 1998).
The Governor's Commission for the Everglades succeeded "The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida" which Commission was created by the late Governor Lawton Chiles in 1994 and operated until June, 1999. See,< http://fcn.state.fl.us/everglades/gcssf/gcssf.html >