CopyCited 5 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2017 A.M.C. 1574, 97 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1368, 2017 WL 2622333, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10734
...Under the statute, private citizens have a cause of action to enjoin the operation of any stormwater facility that violates Florida law. But the Florida Water Resources Act also provides that “[t]he governing board or the [DEP] shall be a necessary party to any such suit.” Fla. Stat. § 373.433 ....
...And notably, the relevant Clean Water Act provision expressly incorporates all state pollution-control rules, no matter *1319 whether procedural or substantive. See 33 U.S.C. § 1323 (a). In this case, although we need not discern the precise meaning of the phrase “necessary party” in the Water Resources Act, Fla. Stat. § 373.433 , 10 the plain import of the language — which is incorporated into the federal cause of action under § 1323(a) — is to ensure adequate representation and protection of Florida’s interests in any action under the Florida Act....
...The operation of such stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works may be enjoined by suit by the state or any of its agencies or by a private citizen. The governing board or the [DEP] shall be a necessary party to any such suit. Fla. Stat. § 373.433 ....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1975).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...One specific power which is delegated to the district as well as the department is the power to seek legal redress should the effect of any dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or other work violate pollution laws of the state, thereby becoming a public nuisance by law. Section 373.433 , F.S....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 WL 1379
...The United States contends that the "delivery of nutrient-loaded waters [by the Water District] constitutes a nuisance under Florida law” and asks for an injunction to "abate the nuisance.” Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 48, 68. The United States clarified in oral argument, however, that it is referring to Fla.Stat. § 373.433, which declares acts in violation of the state’s permit and water quality requirements to be a statutory nuisance....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 3906856, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12388
...But, as the trial judge noted, a *108 strong argument exists that section
373.443 “was enacted specifically to avoid the operational versus planning distinction” under section
768.28 “otherwise there would be no reason to enact” the former. We agree that section
373.433 was intended to provide a broader scope of immunity where a partial/total failure of a stormwater management system occurs and the failure arises from the control or regulation of the system....
...operational and maintenance activities of the system, and if so, was it the legislature’s intent to thereby extend immunity to all such activities (as Justice Grimes’s concurrence discusses)? The reason we need not resolve this question is that section 373.433’s broad scope of immunity easily encompasses the Barneses’ claims that the District failed to design an adequate system, one that resulted in a partial failure due to the breach of the retaining wall in Pond F....
