STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. MCCORMICK AND KATHRYN H. MCCORMICK, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in its interpretation of DER regulations regarding dredging/filling and solid waste disposal, and that a preliminary injunction should have been granted.
[1] A regulation granting environmental protection agency jurisdiction over dredging and filling activities requires a permit for waters exceeding ten acres or having a maxim…
[2] Environmental regulations prohibiting solid waste disposal in or near bodies of water apply to activities occurring within two hundred feet of such water bodies.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDER sought a preliminary injunction against the McCormicks for illegal dredging, filling, and solid waste dumping. The trial court denied most of the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Florida Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
In this case the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) sought a preliminary injunction against the appel-lees, James and Kathryn McCormick, alleging that they were conducting dredging and filling activities on their property without a permit, and that they were dumping solid wastes (automobile frames, wheels, construction debris, garbage, etc.) in and around a body of water in violation of DER regulations. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the injunctive relief requested, except that the appellees were ordered not to include in their solid waste dumping any material that was not exempt under section 403.707, Florida Statutes (1983), without obtaining a permit.
The evidence at the hearing showed that the McCormicks were dumping the solid wastes in and around a water body located on the land. The water body exceeded ten acres, but the testimony was in dispute as to the average annual depth of the water. The trial judge apparently denied the relief requested as to the dredging and filling activities on the basis that DER “failed to demonstrate that the body of water involved contains more than ten acres of water with a maximum depth of two feet existing throughout the year.”
DER’s jurisdiction as to dredging and filling activities is stated in Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-4.-28(2)(d) is pertinent to this question:
(2) ... those dredging or filling activities which are to be conducted in, or connected directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies to, the following categories of waters of the state to their landward extent ... require permit from the Department prior to being undertaken:
(d) Natural lakes, except those owned entirely by one person and except for lakes that become dry each year and are without standing water together with lakes of no more than ten (10) acres of water area at a maximum average depth of two (2) feet existing throughout the year; It is clear from the trial judge’s order that he interpreted 17-4.28(2)(d) to mean that in order for DER to have dredge and fill jurisdiction over a water body, that water body must exceed ten acres and be no more than two feet deep. DER claims this is a patently erroneous interpretation of the rule, and we agree.
Under the trial court’s interpretation, DER’s jurisdiction is limited to large, shallow lakes. From the plain meaning of the rule, it is apparent that the drafters of the rule intended to grant DER jurisdiction over waters which are either greater than ten acres or deeper than two feet. The rule exempts from consideration only those lakes which are less than ten acres and less than two feet deep. It is undisputed from the facts below that this water body is greater than ten acres; the dispute below was only as to the depth of the water. The trial court implicitly held that the water was greater than two feet deep. This qualifies the lake as one over which DER may exercise permit jurisdiction. In fact, it was undisputed that the lake is larger than ten acres, and this alone is enough to deny the appellees an exemption under 17-4.28. Clearly, the trial court erred in its interpretation.
As to the disposal of solid wastes on the appellees’ property, DER claims that the appellees violated section 403.708(1), Florida Statutes (1983), in dumping their solid wastes. This statute reads as follows:
(1) No person shall:
(a)Place or deposit any solid waste in or on the land or waters located within the state except in a manner approved by the [DER].... However, nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the disposal of solid waste without a permit as provided in s. 403.707(2).
The appellees claim that their disposal of solid wastes falls within section 403.707(2), which reads as follows:
(2) ... no permit under this section is required for the following activities provided no public nuisance or any condition adversely affecting the environment or public health is created and the activity does not violate other state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or orders:
(a) Disposal by persons of solid wastes resulting from their own activities on their own property....
**
(c) Solid waste disposal area is limited solely to the disposal of construction and demolition debris.
DER contends that not only are the appellees violating section 403.708, they are also violating a DER regulation, namely Rule 17-7.04(3), Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows:
No solid waste shall be disposed of:
**
(b) In any natural or artificial body of water including ground water. (c) Within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water, except canals used to lower site water tables or bodies of water, contained completely within the site, which do not discharge from the site.
The appellees argue that this rule is not applicable to them, as it refers to “bodies of water,” and the water located on their property does not fall within this definition. The trial court apparently classified the water on the appellee’s land as a “body of water;” nevertheless, it allowed the appel-lees to continue their solid waste disposal activities, with the proviso that they dispose of only exempt material under section 403.707. The trial court makes no mention of the fact that the solid waste disposal activities being carried on within two hundred feet of a body of water are in violation of 17-7.04. Indeed, it appears from testimony below that the disposal was actually taking place in the body of water. We hold that the trial court erred in refusing to grant DER a preliminary injunction as to the solid waste disposal activities. Under 17-7.04(3)(b) and (c), these activities must cease. We reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for issuance of a preliminary injunction in accordance with DER’s request.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleen Rook v. Rook, 469 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…he trial courts should be encouraged by the appellate courts now.2 In addition, the child support award in this case is “facially inadequate” or “facially insufficient.” See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984); Leopard v. Leopard, 464 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Howard v. Howard, 468 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Florida appellate courts should encourage the development and use of good guidelines for the making of support awards in the trial court and their review on appeal. . See t…
-
Hall v. City OF Orlando, 555 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ellant does not desire to assume that risk it can be avoided merely by refraining from interfering with the natural level and condition of Evans Lake. 492 So. 2d at 463-464. In State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation v. McCormick, 464 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court also reversed the denial of a request for a temporary injunction. In that case, the Department of Environmental Regulation sought a preliminary injunction against the McCormicks, alleging that they were conducting dre…