ELR Citation: ELR 20395
No(s). 4-86-1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep 9, 1987)

The court holds that a permit issued by a local water district to allow construction of a condominium complex on an island in Lake Okeechobee is contrary to Florida law. Florida's Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission rescinded the permit, holding that the Commission had jurisdiction to review the permit, the permit application was inadequate because the proposed development was contrary to existing zoning, the application improperly failed to include sufficient documentation reflecting the planned nature and scope of the development, and the presence of the development would impinge on the water district's ability to regulate the level of the lake and conflict with Florida's policy of restoring and protecting the lake's natural values.

Affirming the Commission's order, the court further elaborated the basis of the Commission's jurisdiction to review the issuance of the permit. The Commission can review the actions of a local water district if they are of regional significance and if requested to do so by any affected person. The court holds that issuance of the permit was of regional significance, since Lake Okeechobee is an important source of water and instrument of flood control for much of South Florida, and construcion of a high-density development on an island in the lake would interfere with both of these functions. The development would also be vulnerable to serious floods and have inadequate escape routes. The court holds that the Florida Audubon Society and the Audubon Society of the Everglades, who petitioned the Commission for review of the permit, are "affected persons" with standing under the statute because they have a specific interest that would be adversely affected by the construction of the development. They were organized specifically to preserve the environment of the Everglades and the South Florida Water Management District, and they have alleged actual ownership and use of land in the district. More than mere aesthetic damage is involved here; the potential injury is a loss of water supply and inadequate flood control. Although this particular proposed development may not create an immediate threat to the water supply, it will trigger other developments that may cause injury. Moreover, the development does pose a clear and imminent threat to South Florida's flood control system.

Counsel for Appellants
James R. Brindell, Bram D.E. Canter
Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart
777 S. Flagler Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 4587, W. Palm Beach FL 33402-4587
(305) 655-1980

Counsel for Appellees
Joseph Z. Flemming
Fleming & Klink
620 Ingraham Bldg., 28 SE 2nd Ave., Miami FL 33131
(305) 373-0791

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.