Title: Letter concerning the relationship between SWFWMD
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051883/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter concerning the relationship between SWFWMD
Alternate Title: Letter concerning the relationship between SWFWMD, the Board of County Commissioners and substantial water users who had invested dollars for vested water rights
Physical Description: 3p.
Language: English
Publication Date: June 4, 1979
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 3, Folder 8 ( WELL FIELDS - PUBLIC - ORDERS ), Item 2
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00051883
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text














June 4, 1979



L. M. Blain, Esquire
Blain & Cone, P.A.
P.O. Box 399
Tampa, FL 33601

Re: Southwest Florida Water Management District

Dear Buddy:

I have received your letter of June 1, 1979, with
much interest. As usual, it has some good and bad news in
it. I really look forward some day to having a letter from
you that has all good news in it which apparently will mean
that some of our water problems have then been put behind
us. I will try to answer your letter as framed.

The reason that I did not bring up the Aiken letter at
the Commission meeting was that I was unaware that the staff
was coming to the Commission and was simply not prepared to
discuss at length the situation. I also do not believe that
even had I known you were coming, I would have brought the
subject up because it would have only led to substantial con-
troversy and I did not think that that was appropriate for
the meeting. As it turns out, the meeting has been interpreted
by some as another confrontation which goes to show you that
they don't really know what a confrontation between us really
looks like.

My position concerning the Aiken letter is totally
adverse. The information required in it for the most part
does not bear on any of the criteria which the Water Management
District has established in its rules or that the Legislature
has established by law. In my judgment, it is a bold face
attempt to substitute the Water Management District for the
Board of County Commissioners and I personally intend to
resist it with all vigor at my disposal.

I believe that the two year awarding of a permit by
SWFWMD to Eldridge Wilde under the Grandfather Provisions
of the Act was totally unreasonable. The Act, in my judgment,


Continued, please .














L. M. Blain, Esquire
June 4, 1979
Page Two


intended that substantial water users who had invested
millions of dollars in capital have vested rights in water
which they had previously been withdrawing and that the
Water Management District cannot treat us as a "new use"
in this context. Therefore, your interpretation of the
statute as indicated in your letter is now concurred in by
me.

I am extremely pleased at your scheduling of a meeting
to assist in resolving this matter; however, I will be in
Canada on June 22 and have asked my secretary to see if she
can have the meeting rescheduled for a time prior to my
leaving. I concur that if there is a favorable climate
that the permit application be made at the earliest practicable
date.

As far as the specifics of the information requested are
concerned, I will be more than happy to discuss these with
you item by item at our meeting. Hopefully this meeting will
be accomplished before I leave.

As to your mentioning of the case of Village of Tequesta
v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation, you may note that I was Amicus
Curiae for Pinellas County in this case and naturally am
fully aware of the decision. The record would indicate that
the Supreme Court totally adopted Pinellas County's view in
the brief. As you know, Mr. Bexley, Pasco County and others
opposed this view and filed a brief as Amicus Curiae seeking
to affirm the District Court's decision. Central & Southern
filed a brief as Amicus Curiae on the side of Pinellas County
and the Water Authority. With such a matter of such great
interest to the Water Management District, I have always wanted
to inquire of you as counsel why the Water Management District
did not file an Amicus brief and state its position. Any
enlightenment that you can give me in this regard would be most
appreciated.

As far as your statement that I would have legislative
remedy in the 1980 session if we had some problems, I wish to
advise that certainly I would try to avail myself of it should
we have problems which come within that category; however, I
feel that SWFWMD does not have the legislative authority to re-
quire the information and so, therefore, it would probably be
up to SWFWMD to seek legislative authority to get such information
requested and utilize it in the decision making process.

Continued, please .





.








L. M. Blain, Esquire
June 4, 1979
Page Three


I wish you to know that the writing of letters are
always cold and "matter of fact." I do sincerely appreciate
the spirit and intent of your letter and the obvious seeking
of cooperation in water matters. As always, we may have had
our differences, but for the most part we have been able to
work them out on an amicable basis. I look forward to
continuing this procedure in the public interest as both of
us represent public bodies as opposed to a private individual
vs. government situation.

Very truly,




John Alien, Jr.
JTAjr/mt





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs