Title: The Supreme Court Hearing of The Case No. 52,223, The Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation, Writ of Certiorari
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004236/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Supreme Court Hearing of The Case No. 52,223, The Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation, Writ of Certiorari
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - The Supreme Court Hearing of The Case No. 52,223, The Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation, Writ of Certiorari (JDV Box 43)
General Note: Box 18, Folder 6 ( Court Proceedings - 1979 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004236
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, 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







CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW


GIDDINGS E. MABRY 1877-1968
O. K. REAVES 1877-1970
DOYLE E.CARLTON 1885-1972


EDWARD C. ADKINS
THOMAS D. AITKEN
MICHAEL D. ANNIS
JAMES W. AULT
GEORGE BARFORD
DARRYL M. BLOODWORTH
STEPHEN J. BOZARTH
FRANK C. BOZEMAN
ALBERT D. CAPOUANO
MICHAEL R. CAREY
HERSCH E.CAUDILL
ELIAS N.CHOTAS
THOMAS A.CLARK
PRESTON O. COCKEY, JR.
C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN, III
JEFFREY A. CRAMER
ERNEST L.CURRIN
EDWARD I. CUTLER
STEPHEN T. DEAN


LAUREN Y. DETZEL
NATHANIEL L.DOLINER
DAVISSON F. DUNLAP
JOSEPH D.EDWARDS
CHARLES H. EGERTON
MICHEL G. EMMANUEL
LEONARD H. GILBERT
EURICH Z.GRIFFIN
RUTH B. HIMES
LYNN J. HINSON
GEORGE E.HOLLAND
THOMAS F.ICARD, JR.
PETER A. KNOCKED
CHERYL B.KRAGH
JAMES M. LANDIS
JOHN B. LIEBMAN
WOODIE A. LILES
A.BROADDUS LIVINGSTON


TAMPA ORLANDO PENSACOLA TALLAHASSEE


THE EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
P. O. BOX 3239
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601
(813) 223-5366








May 29, 1979


D. WALLACE FIELDS
JOHN G. BAKER
MARVIN GREEN
DAVID ELMER WARD
OF COUNSEL


EDWARD A. MAROD
ERIC S.MASHBURN
DOMENIC L. MASSARI. III
JOHN P. MCADAMS
WILLIAM F. McGOWAN, JR.
R.W.MEAD.JR.
STEPHEN J. MITCHELL
DAVID G. MULOCK
EDWARD P. NICKINSON, II
MICHAEL F. NUECHTERLEIN
JOHN K. OLSON
ANDREW M. O'MALLEY
WILLIAM D. PALMER
DAVID C. PARK
ROBERT W. PASS
ROBERT J. PLEUS, JR.
WILLIAM M. REGISTER, JR.
KEITH F. ROBERTS


THOMAS J. ROEHN
PAUL A. SAAD
ROGER D. SCHWENKE
JAMES M.SHULER
WM. REECE SMITH, JR.
STEVEN L.SPARKMAN
MERREL B. STAINTON
JARY V. STREITWIESER
SYLVIA H.WALBOLT
J. BRENT WALKER
J.GARY WALKER
LAWRENCE M.WATSON,JR.
RONALD L.WEAVER
PETER J.WINDERS
JAMES D.WING
GWYNNE A.YOUNG
ROBERT L.YOUNG
PETER W. ZINOBER


Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire
Pasco County Attorney
P. 0. Drawer 609
Port Richey, Florida 33568


Re: Village of Tequesta v.
Jupiter Inlet Corporation


Dear Jerry:


With reference to the captioned matter, I am for-
warding herewith copy of Reply of Petitioners, The Village
of Tequesta, etc., et al., and copy of Reply of Amicus
Curiae, The West Coast Regional Sater Supply Authority.


Sinc,


WMRJr/gph


William M. Register, Jr.

S to pi.d dell aye g mai in g.
to fitewent dleu i&z mailing.


Encs.


cc: Mr. S. C. Bexley, Jr. (w/copy of pleadings)








de la PARTE AND BUTLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW


JAMES T BUTLER
TRIAL PRACTICEPERSONAL INJURY 8 WRONGFUL DEATH
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
TRIAL PRACTICE/GENERAL
EDWARD P. de laPARTE. JR.
GENERAL PRACTICE
LOUIS de la PARTE. IR.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL LAW
TRIAL PRACTICE/PERSONAL INJURY 8 WRONGFUL DEATH
TRIAL PRACTICE/GENERAL
BANKS B.VEST, IR.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL LAW
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW


403 NORTH MORGAN STREET
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602
(813) 229-2775


May 25, 1979



Honorable Sid J. White, Clerk
The Sumpreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Re: The Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation
Case No. 52,223

Dear Mr. White:

Enclosed herein you will find the reply of Amicus Curia, West
Coast Regional Water Supply Authority to the Petition for
Rehearing filed by the respondent in the above styled matter.


Sincerely,




Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.



EdlP/bb
Enclosure

cc: Marjorie G. Gadarian, Esq.
Thomas J. Schwartz, et al, Esqs.
Jacob D. Varn, Esq.
John C. Wendel, Esq.
John T. Allen, Jr., Esq.


~ / _I__ _











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
etc., et al.,
CASE NO. 52,223
Petitioners,

v.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,

Respondent.


REPLY OF AMICUS CURIAE

In reply to the petition for rehearing filed by Respondent,

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, the amicus curiae, THE WEST COAST REGIONAL

WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY, stand on the briefs previously filed before

this Court by the Petitioners and the amicus curiae and the opinion

of this Court.

Furthermore, THE WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY

accepts and incorporates by reference as if set out completely herein

the reply of amicus curiae, THE COUNTY OF PINELLAS. Since respondent

raises no issues in its petition not previously considered by the

Court the amicus curiae THE WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY

would respectfully request that the petition be denied.

de la PARTE AND BUTLER, P.A.

By: t\- c ^-Pt
Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.
Attorneys for The West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority
403 North Morgan Suite 102
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 229-2775

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been
furnished to Marjorie G. Gadarian, Esq., P. O. Drawer E, West Palm
Beach, FL 33402; Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq., Robert Grafton, Esq.,
Stephen A. Walker, Esq., and John H. Wheeler, Esq., P. O. Box V,
West Palm Beach, FL 33402; Jacob D. Varn, Esq., P. O. Box 3239,
Tampa, FL 33601; John C. Wendel, Esq., P. 0. Box 5378, Lakeland,
FL 33803; and John T. Allen; Jr., Esq., 4508 Central Avenue,
St. Petersburg, FL 33711, by mail delivery this 25th day of May,
1979.




Attorney









JOHNSTON. SASSER & RANDOLPH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
310 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402


HARRY ALLISON JOHNSTON
HARRY A. JOHNSTON II
DONALD J SASSER
JOHN C RANDOLPH
H ADAMS WEAVER


P. O. BOX M


May 23, 1979


The Honorable Sid J. White, Clerk
The Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Re: The Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation
Case No. 52,223

Dear Mr. White:

Enclosed herewith for filing is the Reply of Petitioner to

the Petition for Rehearing filed'by the respondent in the

captioned matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours very truly,


JCR:ab
encls.

cc: Marjorie G. Gadarian, Esq.
Thomas J. Schwartz, et al, Esqs.
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esq.
Jacob D. Varn, Esq.
John C. Wendel, Esq.
John T. Allen, Jr., Esq.


OF COUNSEL
HENRY F. LILIENTHAL
(305) 655-0108


.- st













IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, CASE NO. 52,223
etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,

Respondent.



REPLY OF PETITIONERS


In reply to the petition for rehearing filed by Respondent,

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, the Petitioners, THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc., et

al., stand on the briefs previously filed before this Court by the Petitioners

and the amicus curiae and the studied opinion of this Court.

Respondent raises no issues in its petition for rehearing not

previously argued or considered; and the Petitioners would move, therefore, that

the petition for rehearing be denied.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been fur-

nished to Marjorie G. Gadarian, Esq., P. 0. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, FL 33402;

Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq., Robert Grafton, Esq., Stephen A. Walker, Esq., and

John H. Wheeler, Esq., P. 0. Box V, West Palm Beach, FL 33402; Louis de la

Parte, Jr., Esq., 403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102, Tampa, FL 33602; Jacob D.

Varn, Esq., P. 0. Box 3239, Tampa, FL 33601; John C. Wendel, Esq., P. 0. Box

5378, Lakeland, FL 33803; and John T. Allen, Jr., Esq., 4508 Central Avenue,

St. Petersburg, FL 33711, by mail delivery this 23rd day of May, 1979.

JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
Attorneys for Petitioners
310 Okeechobee Boulevard
P. 0. Box M
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
(305) 655-0108



BY '
JOHN C. RANDOLPH




JOHNSTON
'OSER & RANDOLPH
OKEECHOBEE BLVO.
r PALM BEACH, FLA.
33402

_~~~~-- -: --- -!-










CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P. A.


GlDDINOS E. MABRY 1877-1968
O. K. REAVES 1877-1970
DOYLE E.CARLTON 1885-1972


EDWARD C. ADKINS
THOMAS D. AITKEN
MICHAEL D.ANNIS
JAMES W. AULT
GEORGE BARFORD
DAPRYL M. BLOODWORTM
STEPHEN J. BOZARTH
FRANK C. BOZEMAN
ALBERT D.CAPOUANO
MICHAEL R. CAREY
HERSCH E.CAUDILL
ELIAS N. CHOTAS
THOMAS A. CLARK
PRESTON O. COCKEY, JR.
C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN,III
JEFFREY A. CRAMER
ERNEST L.CURRIN
EDWARD I. CUTLER
STEPHEN T. DEAN


LAUREN Y. DETZEL
NATHANIEL L.DOLINER
DAVISSON F. DUNLAP
JOSEPH D.EDWARDS
CHARLES H. EGERTON
MICHEL G. EMMANUEL
LEONARD H.GILBERT
EURICH Z.GRIFFIN
RUTH B. HIMES
LYNN J. HINSON
GEORGE E. HOLLAND
THOMAS F.ICARD, JR.
PETER A. KNOCKED
CHERYL B.KRAGH
JAMES M. LANDIS
JOHN B. LIEBMAN
WOODIE A. LILES
A. BROADDUS LIVINGSTON


ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TAMPA ORLANDO PENSACOLA TALLAHASSEE


THE EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
P. O. BOX 3239
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601
(813) 223-5366








May 22, 1979


D. WALLACE FIELDS
JOHN G. BAKER
MARVIN GREEN
DAVID ELMER WARD
OF COUNSEL


EDWARD A.MAROO
ERIC S. MASHBURN
DOMENIC L.MASSARI. II
JOHN P.MCADAMS
WILLIAM F. MCGOWAN. JR.
R.W.MEAD.JR.
STEPHEN J. MITCHELL
DAVID G. MULOCK
EDWARD P. NICKINSON,III
MICHAEL F. NUECHTERLEIN
JOHN K. OLSON
ANDREW M-O'MALLEY
WILLIAM D. PALMER
DAVID C. PARK
ROBERT W. PASS
ROBERT J. PLUS, JR.
WILLIAM M. REGISTER. JR-
KEITH F. ROBERTS


THOMAS J. ROEHN
PAUL A.SAAD
ROGER D. SCHWENKE
JAMES M.SHULER
WM. REEce SMITH, JR.
STEVEN L.SPARKMAN
MERREL B. STAINTON
JARY V. STREITWIESER
SYLVIA H.WALSOLT
J. BRENT WALKER
J.GARY WALKER
LAWRENCE M.WATSON,JR.
RONALD L.WEAVER
PETER J.WINDERS
JAMES D.WING
GWYNNE A.YOUNG
ROBERT L.YOUNG
PETER W. ZINOBER


Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire
Pasco County Attorney
P. 0. Drawer 609
Port Richey, Florida 33568


Re: Village
Jupiter


of Tequesta v.
Inlet Corporation


Dear Jerry:


With reference to the captioned matter, I am for-
warding herewith copy of Petition for Rehearing filed on
behalf of the Respondent, and copy of Reply of Amicus
Curiae, Pinellas County.

S ncerely yo ,


-Lj$ .lU^^


WMRJr/gph


William M. Register, Jf.'

SSt9Wj fo[ 0?'t :t;4,,igt: /zm tatfnc

to P-mvent ctday in madiny.


Encs.


cc: Mr. S. C. Bexley, Jr. (w/copy of Petition
and Reply)


I _








SLep '~cd tYal ,~g'


e/l. A11AWf


Me Awjw, tAwh/a "7/1

May 21, 1979


SMAY 22 1979

By ------- ------
.. T .. .


The Honorable Sid J. White, Clerk
The Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallakassee, FL 32304

Re: Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation
Case No. 52,223

Dear Mr. White:

I am herewith enclosing Reply of Amicus Curiae, Pinellas
County, to Petition for Rehearing Filed by the Respondent to
be filed in the above matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly,


/jh
Enclosure


cc: Marjorie G. Gadarian, Esq.
John C. Randolph, Esq.
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq., Robert Grafton, Esq.,
Stephen A. Walker, Esq., and John H. Wheeler, Esq.
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esq.
Jacob D. Varn, Esq.
John C. Wendel, Esq.


4~0AI.
~-8~


on T. Al `eij r.











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, )
etc., et al.,
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 52,223
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )

Respondent. )


REPLY OF AMICUS CURIAE, PINELLAS COUNTY,
TO PETITION FOR REHEARING FILED BY THE RESPONDENT


Amicus Curiae, John T. Allen, Jr., for PINELLAS COUNTY,

as reply to the petition for rehearing filed by the respondent,

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, in this cause says:

1. Respondent states that the Court has overlooked the

fact that JUPITER INLET CORPORATION did not have a right of

user to the shallow well aquifer and insists that this right

of user was taken when Tequesta drew so much water as to render

the shallow well aquifer useless. The respondent's position is

incorrect in this regard since JUPITER INLET CORPORATION can

always petition the appropriate water management district for

a right to use its "right of user." In sum, JUPITER INLET

CORPORATION has a "right of user" as the Court has held on Page 7

of its opinion; however, that right may only be invoked by an

appropriate permit from the governing water management district.

This Court was right in its findings that Jupiter was only

subjected to consequential damages in this regard.

Additionally, there is water available in the shallow well

(water table) aquifer, but Jupiter cannot use it, for to do so

would increase saltwater intrusion and permanently harm the re-

source. Thus, there is a right of user as the water is there;

however, the reasonable legal restraints upon this use prohibits

the water's removal. See F.S. 373.042.


I__~ __ _











2. JUPITER INLET CORPORATION argues that this Court has

overlooked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

prohibiting the taking of property without due process of law

and without just compensation. JUPITER INLET CORPORATION re-argues

its position argued at length in its brief which this Honorable

Court has obviously found to be without merit in holding that

there was no such taking. As stated by this Court on Page 8 of

its opinion:
"Article X, section 6, of the Florida Constitution
forbids the 'taking' of private property except
for a public purpose and with full compensation.
Unlike the constitutions of'several other states,
the Florida Constitution does not expressly for-
bid 'damage' to property with just compensation. *

"When the governmental action is such that it does
not encroach on private property but merely impairs
its use by the owner, the action does not constitute
a 'taking' but is merely consequential damage and
the owner is not entitled to compensation. *"

This holding by the Court specifically addressed JUPITER

INLET CORPORATION's complaint as it pertains to either of the

sections quoted of the Florida Constitution or the Fifth Amendment

to the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is obvious that

the Court has not overlooked and failed to consider the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This argument advanced by the opposition merely constitutes

a re-argument of its position prior to decision which is prohibited

by the spirit and intent of Rule 9.330 F.A.R. Department of Revenue

v. Leadership Housing, Inc., 322 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1975).

3. Respondent next claims that this Court has failed to

consider the case of Adams v. County of Dade, 335 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3rd

D.C.A. 1976) (mis-cited by respondent in its petition as 225 So.2d

594. The Adams case, supra, was argued on Page 7 of respondent's

brief and, therefore, falls squarely within the rule enunciated by

this Court in Department of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, Inc., supra.

In Adams, supra, homeowners brought action for inverse
condemnation against Dade County, contending that their properties
had been taken because of the construction of an airport from one-
half to two miles from the eastern edge of three runways, The

2 -






f ,


trial court after hearing evidence found that the plaintiff had

failed to demonstrate a definite and measurable diminution of

value and denied their claim. THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THIS

PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT, STATING:
"* As explained in Martin v. Port of Seattle,
supra, the individual in this type of action
seeks no recovery for his individual suffering,
damage, loss of quiet or other disturbance, but
rather, the measure of recovery is injury to
market value, and that alone. See Annot. 77
A.L.R.2d 1355 (1961).

"There being substantial evidence demonstrating
that not only has there been no diminution of
the value of the property, but, in fact, an in-
crease in the value, the trial judge was emin-
ently correct in denying plaintiffs' claim for
damages." (Opinion at 596)

Therefore, there is no such holding as contended by the

respondent to the effect that "actual physical entry onto the

land is not required." This case on its face is totally differ-

ent factually and in application of law and can therefore play

no part in the decision of this Court.

4. Respondent complains that there is nothing in the record

which supports this Court's holding on Page 10 that "It is a

hydrologic impossibility to place a value upon the water which

was withdrawn from underneath Jupiter's land."

Initially, this statement by this Court is supported

by law. This Court in quoting from 93 C.J.S. Water, 90, p. 765

(1956) (page 5 of this Court's opinion) stated:
"There can be no ownership in seeping and per-
colating waters in the absolute sense, because
of their wandering and migratory character, unless
and until they are reduced to the actual possession
and control of the person claiming them. Their
ownership consists in the right of the owner of
the land to capture, control, and possess them, to
prevent their escape, if he can do so, from his
land, and to prevent strangers from trespassing
on his land in an effort to capture, control, or
possess them. If percolating waters escape natur-
ally to other lands, the title of the former owner
is gone; while a landowner may prevent the escape
of such water from his land, if he can do so, yet
he has no right to follow them into the lands of
another and there capture, control, or reduce them
to possession. [Footnotes omitted]."

3 -





__ -.. _:.- ......-~p 7~--- ._s --; ----..- 7-_".--.-_-C1- -i-. -_. -;-= _,---; -- -,-.-_ a -.-- ----- --- -:--- -'F; --_:- -'--r- ~- --:-












It is obvious from the above-quoted statement that

this Court's statement concerning the hydrologic impossibility

to place value upon the water which was withdrawn underneath

Jupiter's land is eminently correct. On its face, there is no

way of ever determining how much water was ever under Jupiter's

land at any given time and how much per se was withdrawn. This,

indeed, is not a statement which need be supported by evidence

in the record and is not in and of itself determinative of the

decision ultimately reached by this Court in this case.

Additionally, it is counsel's recollection from review

of the testimony in the record given by the hydrologists that

their testimony would fully support this Court's statement in

regard to the fact that it is a hydrologic impossibility to deter-

mine the amount of water which was withdrawn from underneath

Jupiter's lands, and hence, if you cannot determine the amount,

there is no way in which to determine its value. Amicus' counsel

regrets the fact that a copy of the record is not is his possession

in order to specifically cite the appropriate section of the testi-

mony.

5. Finally, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION indicates that this

Court overlooked the fact that it tried to "perfect" its right

to the use of the shallow water aquifer when it applied for a

permit with the water management district but was unable to secure

a permit because Tequesta had withdrawn so much water from the

shallow water aquifer that JUPITER INLET CORPORATION had no water

to take or use. This argument is fallacious because, as this

Court held in the latter part of its opinion, that the perfection

of JUPITER INLET CORPORATION's right was a decision for the water

management district rather than the circuit court. It was up to

the water management district to determine the right of use of

the water. Since Tequesta had lawfully and legitimately acquired

the right to use all of the available water through the permitting

4 -






.., -..i..^^.'^.-,.^-.^- ---.^^.*aaa^CL=-jti-L*as- ~. "_-iihC; i'^ --..^- ~ 1_----- ---.^.^...a:-^- --.;^'. -.~.rii-_.jr ^ -nt;.if -~<. S-'-~-..-~.L ^.SS=i~












process, Jupiter Inlet Corporation was thereafter foreclosed

from "perfecting" its right of use.

6. The decision of this Court has obviously been derived

over a period of numerous hours and substantial judicial labor.

Its reasoning is sound and consistent with American jurisprudence.

It will stand as one of the landmark cases in the United States

and certainly Florida on the question of water rights and should

not be disturbed in its present form. This Honorable Court has

arrived at the right and just decision in this cause, squarely

bottomed and founded upon legal precedent, and accordingly, the

petition for rehearing of JUPITER INLET CORPORATION should be

DENIED.
Respectfully submitted,




SOH T. ALLEN /R.,
N T. ALLEt, JR .A.
08 Central Ave ue
St. Petersburg, 33711
(813) 321-3273
Special Counsel for Pinellas
County on Water Matters


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Reply of

Amicus Curiae, Pinellas County, to Petition for Rehearing Filed

by Respondent has been furnished by mail to MARJORIE G. GADARIAN,

ESQ., of Jones, Paine & Foster, P.A., Attorneys for Respondent,

Post Office Drawer E, 601 Flagler Drive Court, West Palm Beach,

Florida 33402; JOHN C. RANDOLPH, ESQ., of Johnston, Sasser &

Randolph, Post Office Box 48, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402,

Attorney for Petitioners; THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, ESQ., ROBERT GRAFTON,

ESQ., STEPHEN A. WALKER, ESQ., and JOHN H. WHEELER, ESQ., P. 0.

Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorneys for Amicus

Curiae South Florida Water Management District; LOUIS de la


5 -






I4


PARTE, JR., ESQ., of De la Parte and Butler, P.A., 403 North
Morgan Street, Suite 102, Tampa, Florida 33602, Attorney
for Amicus Curiae West Cost Regional Water Supply Authority;
JACOB D. VARN, ESQ., of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith
and Cutler, P.A., Post Office Box 3239, Tampa, Florida 33601,
Attorney for Amici Curiae Pasco County, S. C. Bexley, Jr., L.S.B.
Corporation, and Angeline Corporation; and JOHN C. WENDEL, ESQ.,
of Wendel, Broderick and Chritton, Post Office Box 5378, Lakeland,
Florida 33803, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Citrus County, this

21st day of May, 1979.



^^y ^^///^T


- 6 -






SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 52,223
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
etc., et al.,

Petitioners, J

vs. MAY 21 1979

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
etc., By ----------------

Respondent.


PETITION FOR REHEARING

Respondent, Jupiter Inlet Corporation, pursuant to Rule

9.330, F.A.R., hereby moves this Honorable Court for a rehearing or

reversal of its decision filed May 3, 1979, and as grounds therefore

would show:

1. This Court states at page 7 of its decision that

Jupiter Inlet Corporation incurred only consequential damages when

it was required to withdraw water from the Floridan acquifer instead

of the shallow water acquifer and that Jupiter Inlet Corporation still

had a "right to user". This Court overlooks the fact that the only

right to use Jupiter Inlet Corporation had remaining was a right to

use the deeper Floridan acquifer. Its right to use the shallow water

acquifer was taken when Tequesta withdrew so much water as to render

the shallow water acquifer useless.

2. This Court overlooked or failed to consider amendment

-V to the United States Constitution which provides that ". .No

person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. .

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just

compensation". Tequesta's actions amount to a taking of Jupiter

Inlet Corporation's right to use of the shallow water acquifer for

public use without payment of just compensation.

3. This Court overlooked or failed to consider Adams v.

County of Dade, 225 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976) which shows that

actual physical entry onto the land is not required.

4. This Court states at page 10 of its decision that "It

is a hydrologic impossibility to place a value upon the water which

was withdrawn from underneath Jupiter's land". There is nothing in

the record which supports this statement.

5. This Court overlooked or failed to consider the fact

that Jupiter Inlet Corporation tried to "perfect" its right to use



... ...._ = ..... a .. --- -s. -_-.a- -a u "








of the shallow water acquifer when it applied for a permit, but was

unable to secure a permit because Tequesta had withdrawn so much

water from the shallow water acquifer and taken all the water which

Jupiter Inlet Corporation had a right to use.

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been

furnished by United States mail this 17th day of May, 1979, to

John C. Randolph, Esq., Johnston, Sasser & Randolph, Post Office Box

48, West Palm Beach, FL 33402; Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq., Post Office

Box V, West Palm Beach, FL 33402; John T. Allen, Jr., Esq., 4508

Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, FL 33711; Jacob D. Varn, Esq., Post

Office Box 3239, Tampa, FL 33601; and Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esq.,

725 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33601.

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Respondent
Post Office Drawer E
601 Flagler Drive Court
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
(305) 659-3000



By ,
Mar jore" D. Gadar








































-2-


__;;- -----~-~7c-~--r- I-^-C-l-;i-;r~CI~:~-~ =~T_~_~s~_l_~_L_~=_I_5C~~_l~_~~j-I______ _-i~ ~---lq ~i~C i~I:
----"`--~~-~~ ----~-~-~ ~~~-~~











CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW


GIDDINGS E. MABRY 1877-1968
O. K. REAVES 1877-1970
DOYLE E.CARLTON 188i-1972


EDWARD C ADKINS
THOMAS D.AITKEN
MICHAEL D. ANNIS
JAMES W. AULT
GEORGE BARFORD
DARRYL M. BLOODWORTH
STEPHEN J. BOZARTH
FRANK C. BOZEMAN
ALBERT D. CAPOUANO
MICHAEL R. CAREY
HERSCH E.CAUDILL
ELIAS N. CHOTAS
THOMAS A.CLARK
PRESTON O. COCKEY, JR.
C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN, III
JEFFREY A- CRAMER
ERNEST L.CURRIN
EDWARD I. CUTLER
STEPHEN T. DEAN


LAUREN Y. DETZEL
NATHANIEL L.DOLINER
DAVISSON F. DUNLAP
JOSEPH D-EDWARDS
CHARLES H. EGERTON
MICHEL G. EMMANUEL
LEONARD H.GILBERT
EURICH Z.GRIFFIN
RUTH B. HIMES
LYNN J. HINSON
GEORGE E. HOLLAND
THOMAS F. CARD, JR.
PETER A. KNOCKE
CHERYL B. KRAGH
JAMES M. LANDIS
JOHN B. LIEBMAN
WOODIE A. LILES
A. BROADDUS LIVINGSTON


TAMPA ORLANDO PENSACOLA TALLAHASSEE


THE EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
P. O. BOX 3239
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601
(813) 223-5366








July 2, 1979


D. WALLACE FIELDS
JOHN G. BAKER
MARVIN GREEN
DAVID ELMER WARD
OF COUNSEL


EDWARD A. MAROD
ERIC S.MASHBURN
DOMENIC L.MASSARI.II1
JOHN P. MCADAMS
WILLIAM F. MCGOWAN, JR.
R.W.MEAD.JR.
STEPHEN J. MITCHELL
DAVID G. MULOCK
EDWARD P. NICKINSON, III
MICHAEL F. NUECHTERLEIN
JOHN K. OLSON
ANDREW M. O'MALLEY
WILLIAM D.PALMER
DAVID C. PARK
ROBERT W. PASS
ROBERT J. PLEUS, JR.
WILLIAM M.REGISTER, JR.
KEITH F. ROBERTS


THOMAS J. ROEHN
PAUL A. SAAD
ROGER D.SCHWENKE
JAMES M.SHULER
WM. REECE SMITH, JR.
STEVEN L.SPARKMAN
MERREL B.STAINTON
JARY V. STREITWIESER
SYLVIA H.WALBOLT
J. BRENT WALKER
J. GARY WALKER
LAWRENCE M.WATSON,JR.
RONALD L.WEAVER
PETER J.WINDERS
JAMES D.WING
GWYNNE A. YOUNG
ROBERT L.YOUNG
PETER W. ZINOBER


Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire
Pasco County Attorney
P. O. Drawer 609
Port Richey, Florida 33568


Re: Village of Tequesta v.
Jupiter Inlet Corporation


Dear Jerry:


With reference to the captioned matter, I am forward-
ing herewith copy of Order denying Petition for Rehearing.


Sincerely yours,





William M. Register, Jr.


WMRJr/gph


Enc.


cc: Mr. S. C. Bexley, Jr. (w/copy of pleading)


bc: JDVarn


Dept Of Environmental Regulation

RECEIVED


JUL 10 1979


OFFICE OF SECRETARY











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1979


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc.,
et al.,


Petitioners,


INLET CORPORATION,


CASE NO. 52,223


District Court of Appeal,
Fourth District
76-783


Respondent.


Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing filed by attorney

for Respondent and responses thereto,

IT IS ORDERED by the Court that said Petition be and the same

is hereby denied.


A True Copy


TEST:


cc: Hon.
Hon.
Hon.


Sid J. White
Clerk, Supreme Court


Clyde L. Heath, Clerk
Lewis Kapner, Judge
John B. Dunkle, Clerk


Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire
Robert Grafton, Esquire
Stephen A. Walker, Esquire
John H. Wheeler, Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
John C. Wendel, Esquire


By: '
Deputy Cler


V.

JUPITER
etc.,


(Ca/vL









PLEADING
TEQUESTA v. JUPITER INLET


Brief of Appellant (Jupiter Inlet)
D.C.A.


Reply Brief of Appellant (Jupiter Inlet)
D.C.A.


i-----1---- --------i


DATE FILED


10-25-76


10-25-76


3 D.C.A. Opinion/Appeal from Circuit Court 8-9-77



4 Notice of Filing to D.C.A. (Tequesta) 8-12-77

* _____
SUPREME COURT
5 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to D.C.A. 8-12-77




6 Petition For Writ of Certiorari, Granted 9-9-77



7 Motion To File Brief as Amicus Curiae 9-27-77
i

8 Motion For Leave To File Brief Amicus Curiae 9-23-77



9 Order Granting Motion For Leave To File Brief
As Amicus Curiae (SFWMD) 9-27-77


10 Application For Oral Argument (Pasco) 9-27-77



11 Application To File Brief as Amicus Curiae 9-29-77
(John T. Allen)



12 Order Granting Motion to File Brief as Amicus 9-30-77
Curiae 4 Pasco County

1Brief of Appellant (Jupiter Inlet) 10-3-77



14 Order Granting Motion to File Brief as Amicus 10-4-77
Curiae by John T. Allen for Pinellas County


15 Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner 10-4-77
(SFWMD)


16 Application To File Brief as Amicus Curiae 10-5-77
(WCRWSA)


17 Motion For Extension Of Time (Jupiter Inlet) 10-17-77


Motion For Extension of Time-Granted


(Brief due Nov. 19) ___


10-19-77


-- I-


::










PLEADING
PASCO (pro bono)/TEQUESTA v. JUPITER INLET**SUPREME


Motion To Set Date Certain For Amicus Curiae
Briefs (Jupiter Inlet)


DATE
COURT


FILED


10-26-77


L--


Letter fm Sid White, Respondent's Brief due 10
days after filing of all amicus curiae briefs


Motion To Intervene and To File Brief As Amicus
Curiae (Citrus Co)


10-28-77


11-21-77


22 Application For Oral Argument (Pinellas Co) 11-23-77




23 Consent To Motion To Intervene As Amicus Curiae 11-23-77
(Jupiter Inlet)

Brief of Amici Curiae Citrus Co, Pasco Co, S.C.
24 Bexley, LSB Corp & Angeline Corp 11-22-77



25 Motion To Intervene and to file Brief as Amicus
Curiae granted, Sid White 12-1-77


Application For Oral Argument by John Allen,
26 granted, Sid White 12-1-77


27 Petitioners Motion For Extension Of Time To
File Reply Brief 12-1-77



28 Objection To Application For Oral Argument 11-28-77
(Jupiter Inlet)

Order granting Petitioner's Motion For Extension
29 to Jan. 1, 1978 12-5-77



30 Application For Oral Argument (SFWMD) 12-28-77



31 Request For Oral Ar rgu.en by SP~IMD, denied,
Sid White 12-30-77



32 Motion To Strike Petitioners' Reply Brief 1-9-78
(Jupiter Inlet)









_______ ___________ ___________________________________ ______________________________________ ____________________



_____ I


- '--L---~-----


------'^---- ------------~-----'---- -


1 ---- _1 ------- -,- ,-


--------- ---


--I---~-----


_.....-..2~.--..xI~-.~.x.1. 1. 1~~.1-~~n-1..1~ .--~~-~. -. ---.------- --------- ------------- -------- --- -------- -- ----













SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORID j, "


STHE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc., )
et al., )

Petitioners,)
* )
v. ) CASE NO.: 52,223
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
)
Respondent.)


MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF


Respondent, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, moves to strike the

petitioners' reply brief served December 31, 1977, and as grounds

therefore would show:

1) Petitioners' reply brief contains many "factual reci-

Stations" of matters not supported by the record and which are

Entirely outside the record, such as the statement found at page 2 of
I-
the reply brief that Tequesta now provides Jupiter Inlet Corporation

with water. There is no record support for that statement, and,

Indeed, the statement, as based on the record proper which is

before this court, is totally false.

S2) F.A.R. 3.7f(3) requires record citation to pages of the
z
0
original record in those instances where there is any possibility the

opposing party will question the statement. The petitioners have

failed to cite the record as required and therefore their brief must

be stricken. Davis v. Sails, 306 So.2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this court to

strike petitioners' reply brief for failure to comply with the

appellate rules.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was
mailed January 9, 1978, to: THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, P. O. Box V, 3301
Gun Club Road, W. Palm Beach, Fla., 33402; JOHN C. RANDOLPH, 310
Okeechobee Boulevard, P. O. Box 48, W. Palm Beach, Fla., 33402; Louis
de la PARTE, JR., 725 E. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, Fla., 33602; JACOB D.
VARN, 610 N. Florida Ave., Tampa, Fla., 33601; PEEPLES, EARL & BLACK,
One Biscayne Tower, Ste. 3636, Miami, Fla., 33131; and JOHN T. ALLEN,
4508 Central Ave., St. Petersburn, Fla., 33711..

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER


By :_ ___ l_______
Marjci P. Gadarian
Attorneys for Respondent
P. 0. Drawer E
W. Palm Beach, Fla., 33402
(305) 659-3000










LA~RV B ALEXANDER
GE-CRE H BAILEY
SA_-V S BENSON
A RSSELL 0OBO
JAvES R COLE
C-AR.ES DAMSEL, JR.
- *-'RTIN FLANAGAN
.[iL;ANM A FOSTER
MA1,CR!E D GARDARIAN
SEN'.ARD F GRALL
STEVE L HENDERSON
THORNTON M HENRY
R BPU'CE JONES
ROY W. JORDAN JR
RO31N A LLOYD
JOrN BLAIR McCRACKEN
GEORGE H. MOSS
RiC"ARD J OLACK
JAMES C. PAINE
ANT-ONY E. PUCILLO
CHARLES L ROWE
SIDNEY A STUBBS JR
GEORGE P 5UPRAN
EVERETT J. VAN GAASBECK
PAUL C WOLFE


LAW OFFICES

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
601 FLAGLER DRIVE COURT POST OFFICE DRAWER E
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
PHONE (305) 659-3000


OFFICE IN
VERO.BEACH, FLA.


January 9, 1978


Sid J. White, Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304


Re: Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation
Case No.: 52,223
Our File: 2710.2


Dear Sir:


This court has entered orders on September 30, December 1 and 30, 1977
permitting the various amicus curiae to share in oral argument time
"with the consent of the parties." The respondents object to any

amicus curiae being permitted to orally argue this cause before the
Supreme Court.


Very truly yours,


JONES, PAINE & FOSTER





By: A UL
Marjori D. Gadarian < 7


MDG:AFC N


cc: Thomas J. Schwartz -'
John C. Randolph
Louis de la Parte, Jr. ("! '
Jacob D. Varn '
Peeples, Earl & Black
John T. Allen, Jr.

















IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
ET AL.,

Petitioner,

vs.

JUPITER INLET
CORPORATION,


*
*
*
*
*
* CASE NO. 52,223
*
*
*
*


Respondent. *
***************************






Request for Oral Argument filed by Thomas J.

Schwartz for the South Florida Water Management District,

is hereby denied without prejudice to share time if per-

mitted by counsel.


AM
cc:


A True Copy


TEST:



Sid J. White
Clerk, Supreme Court


Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
JONES, PAINE & FOSTER
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
PEEPLES, EARL & BLACK, P.A.
John T. Allen, Jr., P.A.


By: nw ^rLj^^
Di-putv~ `'c.*











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, )
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. ) "
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, ) "' <
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA )
A. JONES, Town Councilmen of ) ,/
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ) X 'A

Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 52,223

vs )
) APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )
)
Respondent. )
- - - - -)
-----------------)

THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ or STEPHEN A. WALKER, Attorneys for SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public corporation of the State of Florida, pursuant to Rule

3.10 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves the Court for an order

permitting counsel to present oral argument in support of its position in this

cause at the forthcoming argument to be held before the Court on January 18, 1978.

Your amicus would show unto the Court that this Court by order dated September 30,

1977, has permitted amicus Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P. A.,

and by order dated December 1, 1977, has permitted John T. Allen, Jr., P. A., to

share oral argument time, if permitted by counsel for the parties in this case.

Your amicus requests a similar order.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
P. O. Box V
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
(305) 686-8800
/'


Thomas J. Schwartz
Of Counsel

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Application for Oral Argument has

been furnished by mail to John C. Randolph,Esquire, 310 Okeechobee Boulevard, P. 0.

Box 48, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402; Jones, Paine & Foster, P. O. Drawer E, West

Palm Beach, Florida 33402; Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire, 725 East Kennedy Blvd.,

Tampa, Florida 33602; Jacob D. Varn,Esquire, 610 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida

33601 and Peeples, Earl & Black, P. A. 1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636, Miami, Florida

33131, this 28th day of December, 1977.and John T. Allen, Jr., P. A. 4508 Central

Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711.





SID J. WHITE. CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF FLORI
SUPREME COURT BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE 32304
r 7
John C. Randolph, Esquire 12/5/77
JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
P. O. Box 48 RE: THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, et al.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 vs.
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, etc.
L I
CASE NO. 52,223
Dear Sir:
I have this date received the below-listed pleadings or documents:

Petitioners' motion for extension of time is granted and petitioners
are allowed to and including January 1, 1978, in which to file their
reply brief.

No further extensions of time will be granted to petitioners.






Please make reference to the case number in all correspondence and pleadings.
Most cordially,



Clrk, Supreme Court
SJW/tsc
cc: John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire De
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire Calt, 7,
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire N
Peeples, Earl & Blank







iI


SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

STHE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a ) CASE NO.: 52,223
I Florida Municipal Corporation, etc.)
et al., )
:)
Petitioners)
v. )
ii )
SJUPITER INLET CORPORATION, a )
Florida corporation, )
I: )
Respondent.)


i OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Respondent, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, objects to the

Application for oral argument filed by John T. Allen, attorney for
SPinellas County, and as grounds therefore would show:
S1) The application is not timely. Florida Appellate
Rule 3.10(a) provides that the application for oral argument must
be filed at the time of the applicant's first brief. The brief of
Pinellas County was filed on November 9, 1977; the application for
oral argument did not accompany the brief and thus :is untimely.
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was
Furnished, by mail, this 28th day of November, 1977 to: JOHN C.
I RANDOLPH, 310 Okeechobee Blvd., P. O. Box 48, W. Palm Beach, Fla.,

33402; JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., 4508 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg,
Florida, 33711; THOMAS SCHWARTZ, P. O. Box V, W. Palm Beach, Fla.,

33402, LOUIS de la PARTE, JR., 725 E. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, Fla.,
JACOB D. VARN, 610 N. Florida Ave., Tampa, Fla., PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK
One Biscayne Tower, Ste. 3636, Miami, Fla., 33131.
JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
By:' ^
Marjorie D. Gadarian
Attorneys for Respondent
P. O. Drawer "E"
W. Palm Beach, Fla., 33402
(305) 659-3000





SNOV3 0i9771
Canton, Fields &
Ward
N r|.









JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
310 OKEECHOBFE BOULEVARD
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
HARRY ALLISON JOHNSTON P.O.BOX M OF COUNSEL
HARRY A. JOHNSTON JI HENRY F. LILIENTHAL
DONALD J. SASSER
JOHN C RANDOLPH (305) 655-0108
H. ADAMS WEAVER



December 1, 1977






The Honorable Sid J. White, Clerk
The Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304

RE: The Village of Tequesta, etc., et al., vs.
Jupiter Inlet Corporation, etc.
Case No. 52,223

Dear Mr. White:

I am enclosing a Motion for Extension of Time To File
Reply Brief on behalf of the Petitioner, Village of
Tequesta.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

JOHNSTON, P, SSER & RANDOLP



n C. Randolph

JCR/ar
end.

cc: John T. Allen, Jr.
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq.
Robert Grafton, Esq.
Stephen A. Walker, Esq.
John H. Wheeler, Esq.
Paul C. Wolfe, Esq.
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esq. E'
Louise de la Parte, Esq. O DF
Jacob D. Varn, Esq. 6>
Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. \ tn "'





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF r-ORIDA

Case No. 52,223

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida Municipal corporation,
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E.
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, DOROTHY
M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA A. JONES,
Town Councilmen of THE VILLAGE
OF TEQUESTA,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
A Florida Corporation,

Respondent.



PETITIONERS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

The Petitioners, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc., by and through their

undersigned attorneys, respectfully request a thirty (30) day extension of

time to January 1, 1978, to file their reply brief on this matter and as grounds

therefore would show:

1. Since the granting by this Court of the Writ of Certiorari several

orders have been issued allowing the filing of Amicus Curiae briefs in support

of the petitioners and the respondents. Several complex issues have been

raised and addressed in respondents' brief and in the Amicus briefs which should

be addressed, and the original amount of time granted by this Court to prepare

the reply brief to these issues is not adequate.

2. There is still pending before the Court an additional motion to

intervene as Amicus Curiae filed by Citrus County. In the event that said

motion is granted by the Court, petitioners would need an opportunity to address,

in their reply brief, any issues raised by that Amicus Curiae.

3. Counsel for petitioners calendar is such that said counsel is

unable to file its brief within the number of days allowed in the original

order filed by this Court.

4. Counsel for respondents was granted an extension based on grounds

similar to those set forth herein.

5. Oral argument in this cause has been reset for January 18, 1978 and

no prejudice will result to any parties if this court grants petitioners an

extension of thirty (30) days in which to file their brief.










I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished

to John T. Allen, Jr., Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Pinellas County, 4508 Central

Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711, Paul C. Wolfe, Esq., and Marjorie D.

Gadarian, Esq., of Jones, Paine & Foster, P.O. Drawer E, West Palm Beach,

Florida 33402, Attorneys for Respondent; Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq., Robert

Grafton, Esq., Stephen A. Walker, Esq., and John H. Wheeler, Esq., P.O. Box V,

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae South Florida

Water Management District; Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esq., 725 East Kennedy

Blvd., Tampa, Florida, Attorney for Amicus Curiae West Coast Regional Water

Supply Authority; Jacob D. Varn, Esq., 610 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida;

and Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A., One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636, Miami, Florida

33131, this _/ day of December, 1977.


JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
Attorneys for Petitioners
P.O. Box 48
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Tele: 655-0108


A





SID J. WHITE. CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF FLORID,
SUPREME COURT BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE 32304

.an, Esquire 11/30/77


JONES, PAINE & FOSTER
P. O. Drawer E
W. Palm Beach, Florida 33402


RE: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc., et al'
vs.
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION

CASE NO. 52,223


Dear Sir:
I have this date received the below-listed pleadings or documents:

Respondent's Objection to Application for Oral Argument by attorney
-for Pinellas County has been placed with the file for the Court's
consideration.


2


Please make reference


SJW/tsc


to the


case number in all correspondence and pleadings.
Most cordially,




C Supreme Court ; .


*cc: John C. Randolph, Esquire
-John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire
Thomas Schwartz, Esquire
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
'Peeples, Earl & Blank


Marjorie D. Gadari














IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
etc.,

Respondent.

* *** ***** **** *


CASE NO. 52,223


On consideration of the Application for Oral Argument

filed by Amicus Curiae John T. Allen, Jr., Attorney for Pinellas

County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, he is

allowed to share oral argument time, if permitted by counsel for

the parties in this case.


A True Copy

TEST:



S supreme Court
Cl k supreme Court


TC
cc: John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas Schwartz, Esquire
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
Peeples, Earl & Blank
John F. Wendel, Esquire














IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
etc.,

Respondent.

*** *** *** ****


CASE NO. 52,223


Motion to Intervene and to File Brief as Amicus Curiae

filed by Citrus County, a political subdivision of the State

of Florida, is hereby granted and they are allowed to file brief

only.


A True Copy

TEST:


rm
W e C ourt
C rk, supreme Court


TC
cc: John F. Wendel, Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas Schwartz, Esquire
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
Peeples, Earl & Blank
John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire





CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD,
1 ANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER P.A.
Post Office PBx 3?], Tampa, Florida 33601
November 22,
I November 22,
: U


Sid. J. White


Supreme Court


Tallahassee,


, Cler *

of Flr)a a

Floride


Re: TEQUESTA v. JUPITER Case No. 52,223
Re: TEQUESTA v. JUPITER _- Case No. 52,223


We enclose herewith:


BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, CITRUS COUNTY, PASCO COUNTY,
S.C. BEXLEY, JR., L. CUPORATION and A AGE 1
for filing and doceO gnOgRTnI e captioned matter. Please not tM
date of filing below and return it in the enclosed self-addr sed
and stamped envelope. s c
SJ V2
By: Jacob D. Varn


Filed


// ') (7~i,)


1977












SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, etc., )
et al., )

Petitioners,)

v. )
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
etc., )

Respondent'.)



CONSENT TO MOTION TO
INTERVENE AS AMICUS CURIAE


Respondent, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, consents to the

application to intervene as amicus curiae filed by Citrus County.
<
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was

furnished, by mail, this 23rd day of November, 1977, to:

SJOHN RANDOLPH, 310 Okeechobee Boulevard, P. O. Box 48, W. Palm Beach,

Florida, 33402; THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, P. 0. Box V, W. Palm Beach,

SFlorida, 33402; LOUIS de la PARTE, JR., 725 E. Kennedy Boulevard,

Tampa, Florida; JACOB D. VARN, 610 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa,
0
Florida; PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636,
z
SMiami, Florida, 33131; JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., 4508 Central Avenue, St.
z
SPetersburg, Florida, 33711; and JOHN F. -WEDEL, P. 0, Box 5378,

Lakeland, Florida, 33803.

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.



By : __ Marjore D. Gadarian
Attorneys for Respondent
P. O. Drawer E
West Palm Beach, Fla. 33402
(305) 659-3000













IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, )
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. )
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, )
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA )
A. JONES, Town Councilmen of )
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, )
)
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 52,223
)
vs. )
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )
)
Respondent. )

APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT


JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., P.A., Attorney for PINELLAS COUNTY,

a political subdivision of the State of Florida, pursuant to

Rule 3.10 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves

the Court for an order permitting counsel to present oral argu-

ment in support of its position in this cause at the forthcoming

argument to be held before the Court on January 18, 1978. Your

amicus would show unto the Court that this Court by order dated

September 30, 1977, has permitted amicus Carlton, Fields, Ward,

Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., to share oral argument time, if

permitted by counsel for the parties in this case. Your amicus

requests a similar order.




4ON T. ALLEN, .
08 Central Anue
t. Petersburg, F/ 3 11
(813) 381-0126
Attorney for Amic s uriae
Pinellas County


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Application

for Oral Argument has been furnished by mail to JOHN C 6

ESQ., of Johnston, Sasser & Randolph, Attorneys for ] iti"fM,













310 Okeechobee Boulevard, P.O. Box 48, West Palm Beach, Florida

33402; PAUL C. WOLFE, ESQ., and MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, ESQ., of

Jones, Paine & Foster, P. O. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida

33402, Attorneys for Respondent; THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.,

ROBERT GRAFTON, ESQ., STEPHEN A. WALKER, ESQ., and JOHN H.

WHEELER, ESQ., P. O. Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402,

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae South Florida Water Management Dis-

trict; LOUIS de la PARTE, JR., ESQ., 725 East Kennedy Boulevard,

Tampa, Florida, Attorney for Amicus Curiae West Coast Regional

Water Supply Authority; JACOB D. VARN, ESQ., 610 North Florida

Avenue, Tampa, Florida; and PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A., One

Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636, Miami, Florida 33131, this 23rd

day of November, 1977.


- 2 -









&aw (Ldwce a/







November 23, 1977




The Honorable Sid J. White, Clerk
The Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304

Re: The Village of Tequesta, etc., et al., vs.
Jupiter Inlet Corporation, etc.
Case No. 52,223

Dear Mr. White:

I am enclosing Application for Oral Argument to be
filed in the above matter on behalf of Amicus Curiae,
Pinellas County.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly,




J T. Alien,

/jh
Enc.

cc: John C. Randolph, Esq.
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esq.
Robert Grafton, Esq.
Stephen A. Walker, Esq.
John H. Wheeler, Esq. -
Paul C. Wolfe, Esq.
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esq. F
Louis de la Parte, Esq.
Jacob D. Varn, Esq. N0o o
Peelpes, Earl & Blank, P.A.


I I& e./06j-c











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC.,
ET AL.,

Petitioners,

v.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
ETC.,


WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Case No. 52,223


Respondent.



MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO
FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE


CITRUS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of

Florida, as a friend of the Court, respectfully moves that

it be permitted to intervene and appear as amicus curiae in

order to permit the filing of an amicus curiae brief.

For cause, CITRUS COUNTY respectfully shows:

1. Through its membership in the Withlacoochee Regional

Water Supply Authority, it is actively involved in the conserva-

tion and regulation of Florida's aquatic resources.

2. Within CITRUS COUNTY, there are numerous, unique

water sources including major rivers and springs. Accordingly,

CITRUS COUNTY is regarded generally as a "water rich" county

and has experienced, and expects to continue to experience,

pressures to supply the ever-increasing demands of public

and private water supply systems within the greater Tampa Bay

area.

3. The resolution of this case is of great importance

to CITRUS COUNTY because:

(a) it will have an impact on the aquatic resources

of CITRUS COUNTY and thereby an impact on the County

and its citizens;

(b) this case thus could form the basis for the

maintenance of similar lawsuits affecting th

property rights of citizens within CITRUS NTYRECtV

and NOV9o ,


WENDEL. BRODERICK & CHRITTON. CHARTERED, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6155 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803 TELEPHONE: (813) 646-5091











(c) its brief may be of substantial benefit to


the Court.

4. CITRUS COUNTY'S brief shall support Respondent's

position and the County is prepared to file its brief on or

before the date Respondent's brief is due. Therefore, the

progress of this case shall not be delayed by the intervention

of the County.

WHEREFORE, CITRUS COUNTY seeks permission to intervene

and appear as an amicus curiae and to file a brief in this

ca.use.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion to
Intervene and to File Brief as Amicus Curiae has been furnished
by regular United States Mail this 21st day of November, 1977,
to: JOHN C. RANDOLPH, Esquire, of Johnston, Sasser & Randolph,
Attorneys for Petitioners, 310 Okeechobee Boulevard, P. O. Box
48, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402; PAUL C. WOLFE, Esquire, and
MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, Esquire, of Jones, Paine & Foster, P. O.
Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorneys for
Respondent; THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, Esquire, ROBERT GRAFTON,
Esquire, STEPHEN A. WALKER, Esquire, and JOHN H. WHEELER,
Esquire, P. O. Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorneys
for Amicus Curiae South Florida Water Management District;
LOUIS de la PARTE, JR., Esquire, 725 East Kennedy Boulevard,
Tampa, Florida, Attorney for Amicus Curiae West Cost Regional
Water Supply Authority; JACOB D. VARN, Esquire, 610 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida; and PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A., One
Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636, Miami, Florida 33131; and JOHN T.
ALLEN, JR., P.A., 4508 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida
33711, Special Counsel for Pinellas County on Water Matters.


JOHN F. WENDEL, ESQ.
WENDEL, BRODERICK & CHRITTON,
Chartered
Post Office Box 5378
Lakeland, Florida 33803

COUNSEL FOR CITRUS COUNTY


By

County Attorney for
Citrus County















-2-


WENDEL, BRODERICK & CHRITTON, CHARTERED, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6155 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33303 TELEPHONE: (813) 646-5091





SID J. WHITE. CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE 32304

r 7





L I

Dear Sir:
I have this date received the below-listed pleadings or documents:


Please make reference to the case number in all correspondence and pleadings.
Most cordially,



C Supreme Court











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Z_)
Case No. 52,2 A. 0#

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida municipal corporation,
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E.
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, DOROTHY
M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA A. JONES,
Town Councilmen of THE VILLAGE
OF TEQUESTA,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
a Florida Corporation,

Respondent.



MOTION TO SET DATE CERTAIN FOR -
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS


I The respondent, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, respectfully re-

g quests this Court to enter an order directing that the amicus curiae

Briefs to be filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional and Supply

SAuthority, Pinellas County, by November 7th, and as grounds therefore

Should show:

1. This Court, on October 11, 1977, entered an order per-
0
Ui-
Smitting Louis deLaParte to file an amicus brief on behalf of West
z
Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, in support of the petitioner's
z
Position. The Court set no due date for this brief and to date the

brief has not been filed.

2. On October 4, 1977, the Court entered an order permitting

John T. Allen, Jr. to file a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of

Pinellas County, setting no date by which the brief is to be filed.

Pinellas County will file a brief in support of petitioner's position.

3. This Court has given Respondent until November 19, 1977

to file its brief.Because the above named amici curiae will be

filing briefs in support of petitioner's position, it will be

necessary for Respondent to meet the argument advanced by those

amici in the Respondent's brief. In order to do this, the amicus

curiae briefs must be filed before the due date of Respondent's

brief so as to permit Respondent the opportunity to respond.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,










i



Respectfully requests this Court to enter an order directing the

amici curiae, Louis deLaParte and John T. Allen, Jr. to file their

amicus curiae briefs on or before November 7, 1977.

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a copy of the foregoing has been

furnished to John C. Randolph, 1115 Harvey Building, West Palm

Beach, Florida, 33401; Thomas J. Schwartz, P. 0. Box V, 3301 Gun

Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402; John T. Allen, Jr.,

4508 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711, Jacob D. Varn,

Post Office Box 3239, Tampa, Florida, 33601; and Louis de la Parte,

Jr., 403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102, Tampa, Florida, 33602, by

mail, this a 2-tday of October, 1977.




JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
0 Attorneys for Respondent
Post Office Drawer E
5 West Palm Beach, FL 33402
(305) 659-3000

L

u By
< Marjorie/D. Gardarian

9-
0

z
IL





SID J. WHITE. CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE 32304
r 7





L I

Dear Sir:
I have this date received the below-listed pleadings or documents:


Please make reference to the case number in all correspondence and pleadings.
Most cordially,


ie Court









IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC., )
ET AL., )
)
Petitioners, )

cs. )

JUPITER INLET CORP., ETC., )

Respondent. ) C



MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The Respondent, JUPITER INLET CORP., by and th ts

undersigned attorneys, respectfully requests a thirty (30) day

extension of time to November 19, 1977, to file its respondent's

Brief on the merits and as grounds therefore would show:

1. On September 9, 1977, this court granted the petition

for writ of certiorari based on a question of great public interest

Certified by FourthDistrict Court of Appeal and granted the respondent

Fifteen (15) days after filing of petitioners' brief to file their

Respondent's brief.

I 2. Since granting oral argument this court has entered

K orders permitting three parties to file briefs as amicus curiae in

Support of the petitioners.
0
3, At the time of filing this petition only the petitioners

and the South Florida Management District have filed their briefs.

Those briefs raise a number of issues which are outside the scope

of the question certified by the Fourth District Court of Appeal to

this court, and which have not previously been raised in the trial

court or Fourth District Court of Appeal.

4. Because of the comple-xit of the issues and the number

of briefs filed or to be filed in opposition to respondent's position,

the original fifteen (15) days granted by this court to prepare

their brief is not adequate.

5. Additionally,counsel for respondents will be unable

to prepare the brief by the due date because of a number of other

appellate briefs which had to be- fil-d in the same tine period and

because of a trial set for October 17, 1977.




i.....-~. '~~ *~; ~ -n-UaPa-"r











6. Counsel for respondents has been advised that

oral argument in this cause will be reset for January 18, 1978.

7. No prejudice will result to any parties if this

court grants respondent an extension of thirty (30) days to file

their brief.

WHEREFORE, respondent, JUPITER INLET CORP., requests

a thirty (30) day extension of time in which to file their brief.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been

furnished to John C. Randolph, Attorney for Petitioners, 1115 Harvey

Bldg., West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; and Thomas J. Schwartz,

P.O. Box V, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402;

John T. Allen, Jr., 4508 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida

33711; Jacob D. Varn, Post Office Box 3239, Tampa, Florida, 33601;
0
and Louis de la Parte, Jr., 403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102, Tampa,

SFlorida, 33602, by mail, this /ltAeday of October, 1977.
w


JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Respondent
Post Office Drawer E
601 Flagler Drive Court
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
S(305) 659-3000
i.
e
L-

SBy 0 Zw.
0 Marjorde D. Gadar1an


_ __ _._._ __lnCI I





^ -






IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, and )
THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. LEONE, )
WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, DOROTHY M. )
CAMPBELL and ALMEDA A. JONES, )
Town Councilmen of )
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, )
)
Petitioners,
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 52,223
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )
)
Respondent.

APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE


LOUIS DE LA PARTE, JR., Attorney-at-Law, pursuant to

Rule 3.7(k) of the Florida Appellate Rules, moves this Court

for an order permitting him to file a brief as Amicus Curiae

on behalf of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, a

public corporation of the State of Florida, and for said motion

shows unto the Court as follows:

1. Your petitioner is a member in good standing of

The Florida Bar. He desires to file a brief as Amicus Curiae

upon the legal issue posed in the above-captioned cause as to

whether a governmental entity may be held responsible to an

owner, through inverse condemnation, when it takes water for

a public purpose from the shallow aquifer underneath the land-

owner's land, to the extent that it deprives the owner of the

beneficial use of the shallow aquifer.

2. Your petitioner wishes to make known to this Court

the views of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

("the Authority"), a public corporation of the State of Florida

created pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S, and by interlocal agreement

entered pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., a copy of which agreement

is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Authority has the duty

of producing and supplying water to the Counties of Hillsborough,

Pinellas and Pasco, and is in fact presently so engaged.














3. The Authority acquires water from the deep aquifer,

thereby lowering the level of the shallow aquifer, like the

Petitioner Village of Tequesta. It expects to increase such

acquisition in the future. Consequently, the decision of this

Court upon the certified question now before it will substantially

affect the rights, duties, and activities of the Authority in

the future.

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this Court enter its

order permitting him to file a brief as Amicus Curiae in this

cause.


LOUIS de la PARTE, JR., P.A.




6y: e______
s de la Parte, Jr.
403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 229-2775
Attorney for West Coast Regional
Water Supply Authority

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Application

to File Brief as Amicus Curiae has been furnished by mail to

JOHN C. RANDOLPH, ESQ., of Johnston, Sasser & Randolph, P. O.

Box 48, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorney for Petitioners;

PAUL C. WOLFE, ESQ. and MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, ESQ. of Jones,

Paine & Foster, P. 0. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402,

Attorneys for Respondent; and THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ, ESQ., P. 0. Box V,

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, Attorney for South Florida Water

Management District; and JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., ESQ., 4508 Central

Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711, Attorney for Pinellas County,

this / day of October, 1977.





Attorney
Attorney













AGREEMENT


THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 25 day of

_C__^_ 1974, between HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, a politi-

cal subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred

to as HILLSBOROUGH; PASCO COUNTY, a political subdivision of

the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as PASCO; PINELLAS

COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, herein-

after referred to as PINELLAS; CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, a munici-

pal corporation, hereinafter referred to as ST. PETERSBURG;

and CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter re-

ferred to as TAMPA.

WITNE S S E TH:


WHEREAS, the parties hereto, pursuant to the provisions

of Section 7 of Chapter 74-114, Laws of Florida, 1974, and to

the provisions of Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, wish to

set forth certain agreements among themselves respecting the

creation of a regional water supply authority; and

WHEREAS, it is recognized by the parties hereto that the

water needs of their citizens can best be met by vesting water

supply functions in such an authority whose prime function

shall be to supply water; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the

cost of the water and services to be provided by the authority

shall be financed insofar as possible through revenues derived

from the sale of water; and

WHEREAS, it is further the intent of the parties hereto

that, during the course of implementation and performance of

the functions, duties and responsibilities of the authority,

the rights of the property owners and inhabitants of the area

of origin to the water reasonably required to supply adequately

their reasonable needs shall be preserved and protected; and










WHEREAS, it is the intent of the parties hereto that

nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the various

municipalities and counties from continuing to operate water

production and transmission facilities for the purpose of

meeting their respective needs for dependable and ade-

quate supplies of water; and

WHEREAS, it is the finding of the parties hereto that

cooperative efforts are mandatory in order to meet the water

needs of the rapidly urbanizing areas in a manner which will

provide adequate and dependable supplies of water where needed

without resulting in adverse effects upon the areas from which

the water is withdrawn. Such efforts should utilize all

practical means of obtaining water, including but not limited

to withdrawals of surface water and ground water, recycling

of waste water and desalinization and will necessitate not

only cooperation but also well coordinated activities; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the parties that the authority

shall design, construct, operate and maintain facilities in the

locations and at the times necessary to insure that an ade-

quate water supply will be available to all citizens within

the authority.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. The parties hereto do hereby create (and incorpo-

rate) a regional water supply authority pursuant to the pro-

visions of Chapter 74-114, Laws of Florida, 1974, to be known

as the WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY, hereinafter

referred to as AUTHORITY, to be comprised of the area described

and shown in Exhibit A, for the purpose of developing regional

water supplies and supplying water at wholesale to counties and

municipalities, which shall constitute a special district under

the laws of the State of Florida, and as such, a separate and

independent governmental entity.




.1-


2. The AUTHORITY shall have the following powers and

duties:

a. To have perpetual succession;

b. To adopt a corporate seal and alter it at

pleasure;

c. To take by grant, purchase, bequest, eminent

domain as authorized, devise or lease, and to hold, enjoy, lease,

sell or otherwise dispose of, any and all real and personal

property necessary or convenient to the full exercise of its

powers; also to acquire, construct or operate, control and use

any and all works, facilities and means necessary or convenient

to the full exercise of its powers, and to do and perform any

and all things necessary or convenient to the full exercise of

the powers herein granted;

d. To maintain an office at such place or places

within the territorial boundaries of the AUTHORITY as it may

designate;

e. To employ and to compensate such personnel, con-

sultants, and technical and professional assistants as it shall

deem necessary to exercise the powers and perform the duties

set forth in this agreement;

f. To accept and receive, utilize or expend, in

furtherance of its functions, funds, grants, and services from

the federal government or its agencies, from departments,

agencies and instrumentalities of state, municipal, county, or

other local governments, or from private or civic sources;

g. To invest any surplus money in the AUTHORITY

treasury, including such money in any sinking or other fund

established for the purpose of providing for the payment of

the principal or interest of any bonded or other indebtedness

or for any other purpose, not required for the immediate

necessities of the district, in its own bonds, or in treasury

notes, or bonds, of the United States, or of this state, and


-3-












such investment may be made by direct purchase of any issue

of such bonds or treasury notes, or part thereof, at the

original sale of the same, or by the subsequent purchase of

such bonds or treasury notes. Any bonds or treasury notes

thus purchased and held may from time to time, be sold and the

proceeds reinvested in bonds or .treasury notes, as above pro-

vided. Sales of any bonds or treasury notes thus purchased

and held shall, from time to time, be made in season so that

the proceeds may be applied to the purposes for which the

money, with which the bonds or treasury notes were originally

purchased, were placed in the treasury of the AUTHORITY. The

functions and duties authorized by this paragraph shall be

performed by joint action of the Comptroller and Treasurer,

with the approval of the attorney, under such rules and regu-

lations as shall be prescribed by the board of directors of

the AUTHORITY.

h. To adopt rules of procedure for the regulation

of its affairs and the conduct of its business.
i. To receive and use such technical assistance

as shall be from time to time made available for its use by

any county or municipality in the AUTHORITY.

j, To have and exercise such powers as are reason-

ably implied herefrom and necessary and proper to carry out

the objectives and purposes of the AUTHORITY.
k. Without in any way limiting the foregoing, to

exercise and perform all powers and duties set forth in Section

7 of Chapter 74-114, Laws of Florida, 1974, as fully as though

set forth herein.

3. All powers, privileges and.duties vested in or im-

posed upon the AUTHORITY shall be exercised and performed by

and through a board of directors; provided, however, that the

exercise of any and all executive, administrative and minis-




r--





terial powers may be by said board of directors delegated and

redelegated to any of the offices created hereby or by the

board of directors acting hereunder.

The board of directors shall consist of one representa-

tive of each party hereto. Such representatives shall serve

without compensation from the AUTHORITY, except that they may

be reimbursed their reasonable expenses incurred in perform-

ing their duties hereunder. One representative shall be desig-

nated and appointed by the governing body of each of the

parties to this Agreement and shall serve at the pleasure of

his or her respective governing body. As a member of the

board of directors, each representative shall be entitled to

one vote on all questions, orders, and resolutions coming be-

fore the board. The affirmative votes of members representing

more than fifty (50) percent of the total number of votes of

all the members shall be necessary and, except as otherwise

herein provided, shall be sufficient to carry any question,

order or resolution coming before the board of directors.

Members of the first board of directors so constituted shall

convene within thirty (30) days of the date of the full exe-

cution of this Agreement by all of the parties hereto, and

immediately upon convening, such board of directors shall elect

from its membership a chairman and a vice chairman, each of whom

shall serve for a term of one year, or until their respective

successors shall be elected and qualified. Such offices shall be

filled by an election annually thereafter. The board of direc-

tors shall have power:
a. To fix the time and place or places at which

its regular meetings shall be held, and shall provide for the

calling and holding of special meetings.

b. To make and pass rules, regulations, resolutions

and orders not repugnant to the Constitution of the United

States or of the State of Florida, or to the provisions of


-5-









Chapter 74_114, Laws of Florida, 1974, or this agreement,

necessary for the government and management of the affairs of

the AUTHORITY, for the execution of the powers vested in the

AUTHORITY and for carrying into effect the provisions of this

agreement and for providing terms and conditions under which

additional parties may join the AUTHORITY pursuant to Section

7(6) of Chapter 74-114, Laws of Florida, 1974.

c. To fix the location of the principal place of

business of the AUTHORITY and the location of all offices and

departments maintained hereunder.

d., To prescribe by resolution a system of business

administration and to create any and all necessary offices

which shall incoude the offices of Comptroller, Secretary and

Treasurer and to establish and re-establish the powers and duties

and compensation of all officers and employees and to require

and fix the amount of all official bonds necessary for the prp-

tection of the funds and property of the AUTHORITY.

e. To delegate and re-delegate by resolution to

officers of the AUTHORITY power to employ clerical, legal and

engineering assistants and labor, under such conditions and

restrictions as shall be fixed by the directors.

f. To prescribe a method of auditing and allowing

or rejecting claims and demands; also to prescribe methods for

the construction of works and for the letting of contracts or

furnishings of labor, materials or supplies, required for the

carrying out of any of the purposes of this act; provided that

in cases where work if not to be done by the AUTHORITY, itself

and the amount involved shall be five thousand dollars

($5,000.00), or more, the board of directors shall provide for the

letting of contracts to the lowest and best responsible bidder,

after publication of notices inviting bids, subject to the right

of said board to reject any and all proposals; provided further,

that contracts in writing or otherwise, may be let without ad-







-I



vertising for or inviting bids, when any repairs, alterations

or other work, or the purchase of materials, supplies, equip-

ment or other property, shall be deemed by the board of direc-

tors to be of urgent necessity, and shall be authorized by a

two-thirds vote thereof.

g. To fix the rate or rates at which water shall

be sold in accordance with Section 7(2)(b) of Chapter 74-114,

Laws of Florida, 1974. Such rates shall be uniform for like

classes of service throughout the AUTHORITY.

4. Budget.

a. The fiscal year of the AUTHORITY shall extend

from October 1 of each year through September 30 of the follow-

ing year. Except as hereinafter provided in paragraph 5 b.,

the board of directors shall during the month of July of each

year complete the preparation of a tentative budget for the

AUTHORITY covering its proposed operation and requirements for

the ensuing fiscal year.

b. During the month of July and following the

preparation of a tentative budget the board of directors shall

publish a notice of its intention to adopt the budget. Ad-

ditionally, the board of directors shall provide copies of the

tentative budget to the parties and said tentative budget shall

be accompanied by the estimated annual contribution of each

of the counties, as provided in paragraph 5 below. The notice

shall set forth the tentative budget in full, and shall be

notice to all owners of property subject to the AUTHORITY

taxes that on a date and at a place appearing in the notice,

opportunity will be afforded to such owners, their attorneys

or agents, to appear before the board and show their objec-

tions to the budget. The notice shall be published once a week
f6r two consecutive weeks, in any newspaper qualified to ac-

cept legal advertisements, in each county in the AUTHORITY,

the last insertion of which shall appear not less than one

week prior to the date set by the board for the hearing on

the budget.


-7-










c. The hearing will be by and before the board of

directors. The board of directors shall give consideration to

objections filed against the budget and in its discretion may

amend, modify or change the tentative budget. The board shall

by August 15 following adopt a final budget for the AUTHORITY

which shall thereupon be the operating and fiscal guide for

the AUTHORITY for the ensuing year.

5. Funding.

a. For a period not to exceed five (5) fiscal years

from the date of this Agreement each county which is a party

hereto agrees to contribute annually to the AUTHORITY; pro-

vided that the annual contribution of any county shall not ex-

ceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) without the con-

sent of such contributing county. The annual contribution shall

be determined by the following formula:

A = Amount of County Taxable Value as shown
on the Final Recapitulation of the Ad
Valorem Rolls for the previous year as
filed with the Florida Department of
Revenue

B = Total of County Taxable Value of all
Counties which are parties to the
Agreement

C = Amount of funds designated by the Board
of Directors to be derived from counties

A
Contribution = B x C


b. The parties hereto adopt the budget, attached

as Exhibit B, in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Eight Thou-

sand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars ($228,960.00) as its final

budget for fiscal year 1974-75.

6. HILLSBOROUGH hereby affirms that, at a duly consti-

tuted meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on the

day of _, 1974, it approved the terms

of this Agreement and the execution thereof by HILLSBOROUGH.

7. PASCO hereby affirms that, at a duly constituted

meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on the

day of 1974, it approved the terms of

this Agreement and the execution thereof by PASCO.


_1.~_.~ ---- -. ----------------~1 Yli-~-~ICL------P










8. PINELLAS hereby affirms that, at a duly constituted

meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on the day

of 1974, it approved the terms of this

Agreement and the execution thereof by PINELLAS.

9. ST. PETERSBURG hereby affirms that, at a duly consti-

tuted meeting of the City Council on the day of _,

1974, it approved the terms of this Agreement and the execution

thereof by ST. PETERSBURG.

10. TAMPA hereby affirms that, at a duly constituted

meeting of the City Council on the /5 1 day of OcAer ,

1974, it approved the terms of this Agreement and the execu-

tion thereof by TAMPA.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this

Agreement the day and year first above written.


Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of: HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY


By
Chairman, Board of
County Commissioners

As to Hillsborough Attest
Clerk of the Circuit Court




PASCO COUNTY


By
Chairman, Board of
County Commissioners

As to Pasco
Attest
Clerk of the Circuit Court


_I_~_ __~__ ~ _I_ ~______I










PINELLAS COUNTY


As to Pinellas


Chairman, Board of
County Commissioners


By
Clerk of the Circuit Court



CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG


Mayor


As to St. Petersburg


City Manager


Attest
City Clerk


CITY OF TAMPA


By j7 '->
Mayor


A to Tampa


-) C/ /
Attes -t Ciy le-' rk .<
S City Clerk z-,


-10-


K/)


--~------


\ Ll

61na^











EXHIBIT A



AREA OF THE WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER
SUPPLY AUTHORITY



The area of the authority shall consist of all of

Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Pinellas County, and is

more particularly described as follows:


Beginning at the southeast corner
of Section 36, Township 32 South, Range
22 East, for a Point of Beginning (P.O.B.).
Said P.O.B. is the intersection of the
range.line between Range 22 East and Range
23 East and the township line between
Township 32 South and Township 33 South
and also is the southeast corner of
Hillsborough County, Florida.

1. From the P.O.B. run westerly
on the township line between
Township 32 South and Township
33 South to the south bank of
Tampa Bay;

2. Thence in a direct line to a
point midway between Eqmont
and Passage Keys in the Gulf
of Mexico;

3. Thence westerly to the western
boundary of the jurisdictional
waters of the State of Florida;

4. Thence northerly on the western
boundary of the jurisdictional
watersof the State of Florida
to the point where the township
line dividing Township 23 South
and Township 24 South intersects
with said western boundary;

5. Thence easterly along the township
line dividing Township 23 South
and Township 24 South to the range
line dividing Range 20 East and
Range 21 East;

6. Thence northerly along the range
line dividing Range 20 East and
Range 21 East to the Northwest
corner of Section 19, Township
23 South, Range 21 East;.

7. Thence easterly along the section
line dividing Section 19 and Section
18 of Township 23 South, Range 21
East to the range line dividing
Range 22 East and Range 23 East;










8. Thence southerly along the range
line dividing Range 22 East and
Range 23 East to the township
line dividing Township 25 South
and Township 26 South;

9. Thence westerly along the township
line dividing Township 25 South
and Township 26 South to the Northwest
corner of Section 3, Township 26
South, Range 22 East;

10. Thence southerly along the western
section line of Section 3, Township
26 South, Range 22 East, to the
township line dividing Township
26 South and Township 27 South;

11. Thence easterly along the township
line dividing Township 26 South
and Township 27 South to the range
line dividing Range 22 East and
Range 23 East;

12. Thence southerly along the range
line dividing Range 22 East and
Range 23 East to the P.O.B.









EXHIBIT B


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY

BUDGET

FISCAL YEAR 1974-75


Salaries

Executive Director
Secretary
Technician
Fringes (22%)

Legal Fees

Office Furnishings

Office Rent (1000 sq. ft.)

Telephones

Office Supplies

Office Equipment

Copy Machine

Travel Expenses

Auto Transportation (Rental)

Gas, Oil, etc.

Audit

Engineering Study

Financial Advisers

Technical Liaison for Referendum

Reserve (20%)


$25,000
10,000
15,000
11,000

30,000

5,000

.7,000

1,200

2,500

1,500

1,200

1,500

2,100

800

2,000

50,000

5,000

20,000

38,160


TOTAL $ 228,960


--- ----------- -


----














IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida municipal corporation,
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM
E. LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR,
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA
A. JONES, Town Councilmen of
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,

Respondent.


CASE NO. 52,223


* *** ****** ***



Application to file brief as amicus curiae, filed by

John T. Allen, Jr., on behalf of Pinellas County, a political

division of the State of Florida, is hereby granted and he is

allowed to file brief only.

Please file an original and seven (7) copies of the


brief.


A True Copy

TEST:


TC
cc: John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Paul C. Wolfe, Esquire
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire













IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida municipal corporation,
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM
E. LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR,
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA
A. JONES, Town Councilmen of
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,

Petitioners,

vs.

JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,


CASE NO. 52,223


Respondent.


Application to file brief as amicus curiae, filed by

John T. Allen, Jr., on behalf of Pinellas County, a political

division of the State of Florida, is hereby granted and he is

allowed to file brief only.

Please file an original and seven (7) copies of the


brief.


A True Copy

TEST:



supreme Court
Clrk, supreme Court


TC
cc: John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Paul C. Wolfe, Esquire
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire









IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1977


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC.,
ET AL.,


Petitioners,


vs. CASE NO. 52,223

JUPITER INLET CORP., ETC., *
*
Respondent.
*
* * * * *

Motion to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Application for

Oral Argument, filed on behalf of Pasco County, S. C. Bexley, Jr.,

L. S. B. Corporation, and Angeline Corporation, are granted as to

filing of brief only without prejudice to share oral argument time

if permitted by counsel for the parties in the case.


A True Copy

TEST:


R

cc: Jacob D. Varn, Esquire
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Esquire
Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire












IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, and )
THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. )
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, )
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and )
ALMEDA A. JONES, Town )
Councilmen of THE VILLAGE OF )
TEQUESTA, )
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 52,223
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )

Respondent. )

APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE


JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., Attorney-at-Law, pursuant to

Rule 3.7(k) of the Florida Appellate Rules, moves the

Court for an order permitting him to file a brief as

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Pinellas County, a political

division of the State of Florida, and for said motion

shows unto the Court as follows:

1. Your petitioner is a member in good standing

of the Florida Bar. He desires to file a brief as Amicus

Curiae of the Court upon the legal issue posed in the

above-captioned cause as to whether or not a municipality

(or county) may be held responsible to an owner when it

takes water for a public purpose from the shallow well

aquifer underneath the landowner's land to the extent that

it deprives the owner of the beneficial use of the shallow

aquifer.

2. Your petitioner wishes to make known to this

Court the views of Pinellas County, a political subdivision

of the State of Florida, who is responsible for the supplying

of potable water for public purposes from a number of well

fields located in Pinellas and Pasco County. Pinellas

County is an area which substantially and for all practical


bid 7












purposes is void of potable fresh water. As a result,

Pinellas County has been required for many years to seek

its potable drinking water for human consumption essentially

outside the political boundaries of Pinellas County.

The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal under

review by this Court will have a substantial and far

reaching impact upon Pinellas County for obvious and

apparent reasons. Pinellas County will be impacted by

this Court's decision to a far greater extent than even

the present litigant before this Court.

3. Your petitioner has considerable expertise in

the field of water law. He was one of the lawyers who

assisted in drafting legislation creating regional water

authorities. He has been special counsel for Pinellas

County on water matters in excess of five (5) years.

Your petitioner has handled substantial litigation in the

District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Second

District, and the Supreme Court of Florida dealing with

water matters. Therefore, your petitioner is in a position

as Amicus Curiae to be of substantial benefit to this

Court by filing a brief upon the central question before

:this Court.

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this Court enter

its order permitting him to file a brief as Amicus Curiae

in this cause.




JO L T. ALLEN, JR. .
4 08 Central Avee
t. Petersburg, 3711
(813) 381-0126
Attorney for Pine as Co ty


- 2 -











CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing
Application to File Brief as Amicus Curi'ae has been
furnished by mail to JOHN C. RANDOLPH, ESQUIRE, of
Johnston, Sasser & Randolph, P.O. Box 48, West Palm Beach,
Florida 33402, Attorney forPetitioners; PAUL C. WOLFE,
ESQUIRE, and MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, ESQUIRE, of Jones,
Paine & Foster, P.O. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida
33402, Attorneys for Respondent; and THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ,
ESQUIRE, P.O. Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402,
Attorney for South Florida Water Management District,
this 29th day of September, 1977.



/. "'4A~S


- 3-












I
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, and )
THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. )
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, )
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and )
ALMEDA A. JONES, Town )
Councilmen of THE VILLAGE OF )
TEQUESTA, )

)
Petitioners, )

)
vs. ) CASE NO. 52,223

)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )

)
Respondent. )

APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE

JOHN T. ALLEN, JR., Attorney-at-Law, pursuant to
Rule 3.7(k) of the Florida Appellate Rules, moves the

Court for an order permitting him to file a brief as

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Pinellas County, a political

division of the State of Florida, and for said motion

shows unto the Court as follows:

1. Your petitioner is a member in good standing
of the Florida Bar. He desires to file a brief as Amicus

Curiae of the Court upon the legal issue posed in the

above-captioned cause as to whether or not a municipality

(or county) may be held responsible to an owner when it

takes water for a public purpose from the shallow well

aquifer underneath the landowner's land to the extent that
- it deprives the owner of the beneficial use of the shallow

aquifer.

2. Your petitioner wishes to make known to this
Court the views of Pinellas County, a political subdivision

of the State of Florida, who is responsible for the supplying
of potable water for public purposes from a number of well

fields located in Pinellas and Pasco County. Pinellas

County is an area which substantially and for all practical





1- -----


A











1



purposes is void of potable fresh water. As a result,
Pinellas County has been required for many years to seek
its potable drinking water for human consumption essentially
outside the political boundaries of Pinellas County.
The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal under
review by this Court will have a substantial and far
reaching impact upon Pinellas County for obvious and
apparent reasons. Pinellas County will be impacted by
this Court's decision to a far greater extent than even
the present litigant before this Court.

3. Your petitioner has considerable expertise in
the field of water law. He was one of the lawyers who
assisted in drafting legislation creating regional water
authorities. He has been special counsel for Pinellas
County on water matters in excess of five (5) years.
Your petitioner has handled substantial litigation in the
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Second
District, and the Supreme Court of Florida dealing with
water matters. Therefore, your petitioner is in a position
as Amicus Curiae to be of substantial benefit to this
Court by filing a brief upon the central question before
this Court.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this .Court enter
its order permitting him to file a brief as Amicus Curiae
in this cause.


08 Central Aven'e
t. Petersburg, /3
(813) 381-0126
Attorney for Pine as


- 2 -










IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC.,)
ET AL.,
)
Petitioners,
)
vs. WRIT OF CERTIORARI
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, Case No. 52,223
ETC.,

Respondent.




APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT


Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler,

P.A., attorneys for PASCO COUNTY, a political subdivision,

of the State of Florida, and attorneys for S.C. BEXLEY, JR.,

L.S.B. CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and ANGELINE

CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, pursuant to Rule 3.10,

Florida Appellate Rules, hereby applies for permission to

present oral argument in support of its position in this

cause.

CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL,
SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.
Post Office Box 3239
Tampa, Florida 33601
(813) 223-5366
Attorneys for Pasco County, et al.

By. U
SJacob D. Varn


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has

been furnished to John C. Randolph, Attorney for Petitioners,

1115 Harvey Bldg., West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 and Marjorie

D. Gadarian, Attorney for Respondent, 601 Flagler Drive Court,

P. 0. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, by mail, this

27th day of September, 1977.


Attorney








IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 /J


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,
ETC., ET AL., *
*
Petitioners,
*
vs. CASE NO. 52,223

JUPITER INLET CORP., ETC., *
*
Respondent.
*
** ** * * *

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae, filed by

the South Florida Water Management District in the above styled

cause, is hereby granted. The South Florida Water Management

District is allowed to file brief only, and the brief is due on

or before October 4, 1977. No extensions of time to file the

brief of amicus curiae will be granted.


A True Copy

TES:



Sid J White
Cle ~,.-Sureme Court


R

cc: Thomas J. Schwartz, Esquire
Johnston, Sasser & Randolph
Jones, Paine & Foster


i ~ ''4 "? i~'
V ~i:











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC., )
ET AL., )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs ) CASE NO. 52,223
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
ETC., )
)
Respondent. )
-- -- - - -)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE


The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, by and through its undersigned

counsel hereby moves the Co6rt for leave to file a brief amicus curiae and appear

on behalf of the Petitioners in this matter and as grounds therefore alleges as follows

1. The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation of the

State of Florida created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating

pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a regional water management district

with its principal office being located in West Palm Beach, Florida.

2. Among the South Florida Water Management District's responsibilities and

duties under Chapter 373 is the regulation of water within the boundaries of the

District, in accord with Part II of Chapter 373 and the power of eminent domain.

3. The South Florida Water Management District has implemented Part II of

Chapter 373 by adopting the permit system detailed in Chapter 16K-3 F.A.C. and has

been permitting the consumptive use of water since 1974.

4. The South Florida Water Management District has issued.permits to both

parties in this suit, allocating to each a specified quantities of water based upon

the conditions for a permit specified in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes.

5. The South Florida Water Management District has based its regulatory program

for the allocation.of water upon Chapter 373 Part II and the common law of the State

of Florida.

6. The holdings of the Circuit and District Courts were based upon erroneous

concepts of the nature of water rights and directly contradicts Chapter 373 and the

established common law in this State.

7. Affirmation of either opinion would significantly reduce the ability of the
-\
South Florida Water Management District to manage the water resources of the District

as it is so charged under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.








L _




_d_ **


Rl


0 -1W- --w-


8. The Court, by Order dated September 9, 1977 issued a Writ of CerLior~ar .

this matter.

9. The concept of public or private ownership of the waters of an underground

aquifer greatly affects the exercise of the responsibilities of this District under

Chapter 373.

10. The concept of a "taking" of property rights in an underground aquifer by

inverse condemnation greatly affects the exercise of the responsibilities of this

District under Chapter 373.

Dated this 23rd day of September, A. D., 1977.



ROBERT GRAFTON
THOMAS J. SCHWARTZ
JOHN H. WHEELER and
STEPHEN A. WALKER, Attorneys for
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
P. O. Box V
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
(305) 686-8800



By_ /<74/iy' fK. // -{lAe,___
Thomas J. Schwartz
Of Counsel


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Brief

Amicus Curiae has been furnished Johnston, Sasser & Randolph, P. O. Box 48, West

Palm Beach, Florida 33402 and Jones, Paine & Foster, P. A., P. O. Drawer E, West

Palm Beach, Florida 33402, by mail, this 23rd day of September, 1977.











IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC.,)
ET AL.,
)
Petitioners,
)
vs. WRIT OF CERTIORARI
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, Case No. 52,223
ETC., )

Respondent.





MOTION TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE


Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler,

P.A., attorneys for PASCO COUNTY, a political subdivision,

of the State of Florida, and attorneys for S.C. BEXLEY, JR.,

L.S.B. CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and ANGELINE

CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, as friends of the Court,

respectfully move that they be permitted to intervene and

appear as amicus curiae in order to permit the filing of an

amicus curiae brief. For cause, movants respectfully show:

1. As to PASCO COUNTY,

a) PASCO COUNTY, through its membership in the

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, is

actively involved in the development and opera-

tion of a publicly owned wellfield.

b) Within PASCO COUNTY, there are numerous

existing wellfields, including the City of

St. Petersburg's South Pasco Wellfield, the

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's

Cypress Creek Wellfield, the City of New

Port Richey's Starkey Wellfield and wellfields

for the cities of Dade City and Zephyrhills.

The total water withdrawn by the foregoing

wellfields has totaled as much as approximately











40 million gallons per day. Current planning

envisions expanding the West Coast Regional

Water Supply Authority's Cypress Creek Well-

field to produce as much as 45 million gallons

per day and Pinellas County has acquired some

4,800 acres for a future wellfield that may

produce another 30 million gallons per day.

c) PASCO COUNTY is generally regarded as a

"water rich" county and the County has

experienced, and expects to continue to

experience, the development of numerous well-

fields to supply the ever-increasing demands

of public and private water supply systems

within the Tampa Bay area.

d) The resolution of this case is of great

importance to PASCO COUNTY because:

1) it will have an impact on the existing

and future wellfields in PASCO COUNTY and

thereby impact on the County and its citizens;

2) this case could thus form the basis for

the maintenance of similar lawsuits affecting

the property rights of citizens within PASCO

COUNTY; and

3) its brief may be of substantial benefit

to the Court.


2. As to S.C. BEXLEY, JR., L.S.B. CORPORATION and

ANGELINE CORPORATION,

a) S.C. BEXLEY, JR., L.S.B. CORPORATION and

ANGELINE CORPORATION, own approximately 5,000

acres, 2,500 acres and 2,500 acres, respectively,

in central PASCO COUNTY.

b) The foregoing 10,000 acres are beneficially

owned by various members of a family and are











currently used in conjuction with the family's

farming operations. The property is in the

immediate vicinity of the City of St. Petersburg's

South Pasco Wellfield, which averages a with-

drawal of 16 million gallons per day, the City

of New Port Richey's Starkey Wellfield, which

averages about 2.5 million gallons per day, and

the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's

Cypress Creek Wellfield, which is designed to

pump 30 million gallons per day. The 10,000

acres is within the cone of depression of the

various wellfields and, consequently, is

directly affected by the current withdrawals.

With increase withdrawals anticipated from these

wellfields, the 10,000 acres will continue to

be affected.

c) In order to continue and maintain its

current farming operations, the farm must not

be deprived of the beneficial use of the waters

underlying its property.

d) The resolution of this case is of great

importance to S.C. BEXLEY, JR., L.S.B. CORPORATION

and ANGELINE CORPORATION because:

1) it will have an impact on the existing

wellfields in PASCO COUNTY and thereby directly

impact on the private property of S.C. BEXLEY,

JR., L.S.B. CORPORATION and ANGELINE CORPORA-

TION;

2) the property rights of S.C. BEXLEY, JR.,

L.S.B. CORPORATION and ANGELINE CORPORATION

are directly affected by public owned well-

fields;

3) its brief may be of substantial benefit

to the Court.


-3-











3. The movants' brief shall support the respondent's

position and movants are prepared to file their brief on or

before the date the respondent's brief is due. Accordingly,

the progress of this case shall not be delayed by the

intervention of the movants.


4. The attorneys for PASCO COUNTY, S.C. BEXLEY, JR.,

L.S.B. CORPORATION and ANGELINE CORPORATION have had considerable

experience in the area of water rights, including the prepara-

tion of legal memorandum describing the nature of property

rights in water for the Governor's Property Rights Study

Commission, and this experience would be of substantial bene-

fit to the Court.


Thus, PASCO COUNTY, S.C. BEXLEY, JR., L.S.B. CORPORATION

and ANGELINE CORPORATION seek permission to file a brief in

this matter.


CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL,
SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.
Post Office Box 3239
Tampa, Florida 33601
(813) 223-5366


By QJ
/ Jacob D. Varn





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has

been furnished to John C. Randolph, Attorney for Petitioners,

1115 Harvey Building, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401 and

Marjorie D. Gadarian, Attorney for Respondent, 601 Flagler

Drive Court, P. O. Drawer E, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402,

by mail, this 27th day of September, 1977.


S Attorney
Attorney


-4-




IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

FRIDAY, SEPT-TER 9, 1977






**
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, ETC.,
ET AL., **

Petitioners, **

vs. **
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION,
ETC., CASE NO. 52,223
**
Respondent.
**

**


The Petition herein for a Writ of Certiorari to the

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida, is

granted and the cause is hereby set down for oral argument at

9:30 a.m. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1977.

A maximum of 20 minutes to the side is allowed but counsel is

expected to use only so much of that time as is necessary.

Either side may waive oral argument. If both sides

waive oral argument the case will be promptly assigned for

decision and the cause expedited.

The Clerk of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth

District, shall file the original record on or before October 4,

1977; the petitioners' brief shall be filed on or before October 4,

1977; the respondent's brief shall be filed on or before October 19,

1977; and petitioners' reply brief shall be filed on or before

October 26, 1977. Please file an original and seven copies

of all briefs. UNLESS BRIEFS ARE TIMELY FILED, THE PRIVILEGE OF) ORAL

ARGUMENT WILL BE FORFEITED.

NO CONTINUANCES WILL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF

EXTREME HARDSHIP.





A True Copy

TEST:


Sid J.' White sg
Clerk Supreme Court. cc: Honorable Clyde L. Heath, Clerk
B ,y, Messrs. Johnston, Sasser & Randolph
6. y ,er A -t Messrs. Jones, Paine & Foster
"',Puty Clerk









IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA


THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, )
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. )
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, )
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and ALMEDA )
A. JONES, Town Councilmen of )
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ) PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
) CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT
Petitioners ) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH
) DISTRICT
vs. )
)
JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, a )
Florida corporation )
)
Respondent )



TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA:


Petitioners, THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, and the Councilmen

named herein, present this, their Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari and state:

1. Petitioners seek to have reviewed a decision of the

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, dated the 9th day of

August, 1977, and filed in the records of said District Court on

the 9th day of August, 1977, in Book 44, Page 76.

2. This Petition is presented under and pursuant to

Article V, Section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution and Rule

4.5C of the Florida Appellate Rules.

3. This Petition is accompanied by a certified copy of

the decision Petitioners seek to have reviewed. The original

record in the District Court is filed with this Petition by the

simultaneous filing with the District Court of Appeal, Fourth

District of the Notice of Filing of this Petition and the request

therein that the original record be forwarded to the Supreme

Court.

4. The facts of this case are as reflected in the briefs

filed with the Fourth District Court and the decision of said

Court, all of which accompany this Petition.

5. The legal issue as stated in the decision of the

Fourth District Court, a certified copy being attached hereto, is:
JOHNSTON
SASSER A RANDOLPH
310 OKEECHOBEE RD.
.VEST PALM BEACH. FLA.
33402









"whether a municipality may be held responsible to
an owner when it takes water for a public purpose
from the shallow aquifer underneath the owner's
land, to the extent that it deprives the owner of
the beneficial use of the shallow aquifer."

On this point of law the District Court of Appeal,

Fourth District, held that:

"in such a case a municipality may be held responsi-
ble through inverse condemnation, and further that
the Plaintiff in this case has alleged sufficient
facts to state a cause of action."

6. In regard to such issue, the District Court of Appeal,

Fourth District, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b) (3), of the

Florida Condtitution, certified to the Supreme Court as a matter

of great public interest the following question:

"Can a municipality be held responsible through
inverse condemnation for a taking, from private
ownership for public purposes, of underground,
shallow aquifer water, to the extent that the
owner is deprived of the beneficial use of the
aquifer?"

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request this Court to grant a

Writ of Certiorari in order to review the question certified to

said Court as a matter of great public interest and to enter its

Order quashing the decision hereby sought to be reviewed, and

granting such other and further relief as shall seem right and

proper to the Court.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has

been furnished to PAUL C. WOLFE and MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, of

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.O. Drawer E, 601 Flagler Drive Court, Wes

Palm Beach, Florida 33402, by mail, this /_ ,day of ,Tj

1977.

JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
Attorneys for Petitioners
P.O. Box 48
West Palm Beach, Florida
Tele. 655-0108



BY:
JOHN C. RANDOLPH '







JOHNSTON
SASSER & RANDOLPH
310 OKEECHODEE RD.
EST PALM BEACH. FLA.
33402








IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT


JUPITER INLET CORPORATION
a Florida corporation

Appellant

V.

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida municipal corporation,
and THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM
E. LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR,
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and
ALMEDA A. JONES, Town Councilmen
of THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA,

Appellees


)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 76-783
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


JOHNSTON
S-SSER & RANDOLPH
310 OKEECHOBEE RD.
.EST PALM Dr-ACH. FLA
33402


NOTICE OF FILING


Notice is hereby given to the District Court of Appeal

of the State of Florida, Fourth District, of the filing of a

Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the cause and case number

styled above, a copy of said Petition being attached hereto and

incorporated herein.

It is further requested that the original record in the

District Court be filed immediately with the Supreme Court of

the State of Florida.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has

been furnished to PAUL C. WOLFE and MARJORIE D. GADARIAN, of

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.O. Drawer E, 601 Flagler Drive Court,

West Palm each, Florida 33402, by mail, this / day of

_, 1977.

JOHNSTON, SASSER & RANDOLPH
P.O. Box 48
West Palm Beach, Florida
Tele. 655-0108


7n~











IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH I)ISTRICT JULY TERM 1.977


JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, )
a Florida corporation, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 76-783.
)
TIE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida municipal corporation, and)
THOMAS J. LITTLE, WILLIAM E. )
LEONE, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, )
DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL and )
ALMEDA A. JONES, Town )
Councilmen of THE VILLAGE OF )
TEQUESTA, )
)
Appellees. )

Opinion filed August 9, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm
Beach County; Lewis Kapner, Judge.

Paul C. Wolfe and Marjorie D. Gadarian
of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach,
for appellant.

John C. Randolph of Johnston, Sasser &
Randolph, West Palm Beach, for appellees.


GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in favor

of appellee, The Village of Tequesta. In granting the summary judg-

ment the trial court stated that it was considering any factual conflicts

in the light most favorable to the appellant, Jupiter Inlet Corporation.

So the summary judgment, in effect, was a determination by the trial

court that Jupiter Inlet's complaint failed to state a cause of action.

The legal issue is whether a municipality may be held

responsible to an owner when it takes water for a public purpose from

the shallow aquifer underneath the owner's land, to the extent that it

deprives the owner of the beneficial use of the shallow aquifer. We

hold that in such a case a municipality may be held responsible through














inverse condemnation, and further that the plaintiff in this case has

alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action.

Viewing the facts in the same light as did the trial court,

it appears that appellant Jupiter is the owner of certain'land upon which

it built condominium apartments. Tequesta owns and operates a well

field in close proximity to Jupiter's property. Frmping by Tequesta

from the well field has depleted the fresh water in the shallow aquifer

in the vicinity of the wells and also underneath Jupiter's land. The

withdrawal of fresh water by Tequesta caused a salt water intrusion

into the shallow water aquifer under Jupiter's land, making it unfit for

use as a water source. Jupiter had intended to use its shallow aquifer

as a source of potable water for its condominium apartments. Because

of the loss of its shallow water aquifer, Jupiter is required to obtain its

water at a much greater expense from the deeper Floridan aquifer.

The water taken by Tequesta was used by the municipality for a public

purpose.

The right of a governmental entity to take private property

is limited.

No private property may be taken except for
a public purpose and with full compensation
therefore paid to each owner or secured by
deposit in the registry of the court and
available to the owner.
Article X, Section 6(a), Florida Constitution.

When a governmental entity takes private property for a public purpose

without the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, the

aggrieved property owner has a cause of action for inverse condemn'a-

tion. City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, 167 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA

1964).

Because there is no constitutional requirement that the

government pay for damage done to private property, as opposed to


-2-










taking private property, much hinges on how the word "take" is inter-

preted. Florida courts have not, over the years, been in consistent

agreement on this matter, particularly where -- as in this case --

there was no actual entry by the governmental authority on the owner's

land. It seems apparent, however, that when something is removed

from its owner's property by a governmental agency and put to a public

use, it has been taken. The owner has been deprived by government

action of the use and enjoyment of what was his, and so through a suit

in inverse condemnation he can compel the government to pay for what

it has taken. Compare: State Road Department of Florida v. Tharp,

1 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1941); White v. Pinellas County, 185 So. 2d 468 (Fla.

1966).

The shallow aquifer beneath the surface of land is a form

of private property, the beneficial use of which the owner of the land

cannot be divested by the government for a public purpose without due

process of law and the payment of full compensation. See Valls v.

Arnold Industries, Inc., 328 So.2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). That is.

true whether agents of the government actually physically enter upon

the owner's property in order to take the water from the aquifer or

whether they draw off the water from beneath the owner's land by

pumping. In either event, the owner has been deprived of the bene-

ficial use of his property by government action for a public purpose.

We conclude that the trial court should not have granted

summary judgment and that Jupiter has alleged sufficient facts to state

a cause of action for inverse condemnation.

Fursuant to Article V, Section (b)(3) of the Florida

Constitution we hereby certify/as a matter of great public interest,

the following question:


-3-











Can a municipality be held responsible through
inverse condemnation for a taking, from private
ownership for public purposes, of underground,
shallow aquifer water, to the extent that the
owner is deprived of the beneficial use of the
aquifer?

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.


I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true
oopy of instrument filed in my office.
EMMETT J. COMISKEY, -CLERK
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
fLORIDA, F DISXRIC -. .


ALDERMAN, C.J., and DOWrNEY, JJ., concur.





C-


C-


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation, )

Appellant,
)
vs.
)
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a
Florida corporation, and )
THOMAS J. LITTLE,
WILLIAM E. LEONE, WILLIAM J. )
TAYLOR, DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL, )
and ALMEDA A. JONES, Town
Councilmen of the VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA,

Appellees. )
___________________]


CASE NO. 76-783


A,


An Appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County


REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT


JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Appellant
Post Office Drawer E
601 Flagler Drive Court
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
(305) 659-3000


--- --- ---- ----- ~-- ------I---~--~ II' ---I~~~ '~'' I-~------" ---`-~













TOPICAL INDEX



Page




PREFACE i

TABLE OF CITATIONS ii

QUESTION PRESENTED 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .3

ARGUMENT 5

CONCLUSION 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9














PREFACE



This is an appeal from a summary final judgment

entered in defendant's favor by the Honorable Lewis

Kapner in the 15th Judicial Circuit. The appellant

was the plaintiff below and the appellees were the

defendants. Throughout this brief the parties will be

referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

The following symbol will be used throughout

this brief:

R. Record on appeal


__ ___.n___. _i__l~~__l~_~~__~









C-


TABLE OF CITATIONS





Copello v. Hart 5
293 So. 2d 734 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1974)

Dickinson v. Davis 5
224 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1969)

Kock v. Wick 6
87 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1956)

Lykes Brothers, Inc. v. McConnel 5
115 So. 2d 606 (2nd D.C.A. Fla. 1959)

State Dept. of Transportation v. Stubbs 7
285 So. 2d 1 (1973)

Thiesen v. Gulf, F. & A. Ry. Co., 6
75 Fla. 28, 78 So. 491 (1918)

















QUESTION PRESENTED


I.




WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN ENTERING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
IN AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION ACTION
WHERE THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS CONSTI-
TUTED A "rAKING" OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
RIGHTS IN qHE SHALLOW WATER ACQUIFER
BENEATH ITS,PROPERTY.

(This question raised by assignments
of error Nos. 1, 2, and 3)












STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE


The plaintiff relies on the statement of the case

set forth in its main brief.











/i 1


.-~~.~.~nneCLscL*xWFrr*x IQaUL-*iVTIQZXB~'~Cia~X1-~7-~% .~h~.91r 4"";Il-?rixli~rr rr~-c:~lrCrDmVBClleTr~~i~-;il~ra~an~rrra





C- .




STATEMENT OF THE FACTS



Plaintiff relies on the statement of facts

set forth in its main brief but wishes to comment on

several inaccurate fact statements in defendants' brief.

The Village of Tequesta does not "supply water

for its residents", but has a franchise to do so. The

Village cannot accommodate all its residents and, therefore,

supplies water on a first come-first served basis; not

on a best use basis. 4, (R. 92; 110) The plaintiff

does. not receive any water from the Village.

Village officials knew of the plaintiff's

plans to develop Broadview before the moratorium went into

effect.. (R.350)

It was necessary for the plaintiff to secure a

special exception from the county because the Village

would not supply the plaintiff with water, despite the

fact that the plaintiff's. condominiums were located

within the franchise district. (R. 89; 351; 363-364)

Furthermore, the water which the Village withdrew came

from the shallow water acquifer beneath the plaintiff's

land. (R. 64) Over 50% of the Village water supply

was used for ornamental purposes. The shallow water


__l~_)l_~~i_ _I_; rjrlClj*_ C?~1_ r~__~ __~_~i___ __ _




C


acquifer is located approximately 60' below the surface

and it is relatively inexpensive to withdraw water from it.

(R. 78) The deposition testimony reveals the Floridan

acquifer is 1200 feet below the surface. It is quite

expensive to withdraw and treat water from the Floridan

acquifer so that it is potable. (R. 365; 373-374)







?! *


-----1-- -..... 7 ..... -"....z










ARGUMENT

I.


WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN ENTERING
SUvMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
IN AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION ACTION .
WHERE THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS CONSTI-
TUTED A "TAKING" OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
RIGHTS IN THE .SHALLOW WATER ACQUIFER
BENEATH ITS PROPERTY.

(This question raised by assignments
of error Nos. 1, 2, and 3)



/i-
It has long been recognized that land may be

divided horizontally as well as vertically. For instance,

it is possible for one person to own the surface land

and another to own the minerals underground. Dickinson

v. Davis, 224 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1969). However, with

regard to mineral rights, it is the general rule that

where the mineral estate has not been severed from the

surface estate, possession of the surface is also

possession of the minerals. Lykes Brothers, Inc. v.

McConnel, .115 So. 2d 606 (2nd D.C.A. Fla. 1959); Copello

v. Hart,. 293 So. 2d 734 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1974). Vertical

ownership of land also gives the surface owner other

incidents of ownership such as the right to possession of

the surface and mineral rights below, assuming such

rights have not been severed, and the right to use of


~ *





C-


the shallow waters included in his land. Kock v.

Wick, 87 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1956).

If the state or its agency took the minerals

from beneath the plaintiff's land, there's no question

but that a valuable property interest would have been taken

and plaintiff would be entitled to compensation for that

right. In this case, the property which has been

appropriated without compensation is che water in the

shallow water acquifer.

The taking of riparian rights has been held

to be a "property right" subject to an action for inverse

condemnation. Thiesen v. Gulf, F. & A. Ry. Co., 75 Fla.

28, 78 So. 491 (1918). In that case the property owner's.

riparian rights were taken but he was still left with

the real property itself. Under defendants' theory

(that although the riparian rights were taken they still

had the land and its use)' the taking of such riparian

rights could not form the basis for an inverse condemnation

action. Such is not the case and the courts have speci-

fically held that where riparian rights are taken, the owner,

who still owns the land, can maintain an inverse condem-

nation action.


'C"


1

-





(-


Not just corporeal interests in land are subject

to inverse condemnation. In State Dept. of Transportation

v, Subb-, 285 So. 2d 1 (1973), the Supreme Court pointed

out that "property" is something more than a mere physical

interest in land. The concepts of "property" also include

certain legal rights and privileges constituting appur-

tenances to the land and its enjoyment. For instance,

the right of access to one's property is a property right

for which an owner is entitled to be adequately compen-

sated if the right is taken.,

It follows that if a landowner is entitled to

compensation for the taking of an intangible incident

of ownership, that he is certainly entitled to compensa-

tion when a physical incident of ownership is taken from

him. The actions of the Village have resulted in a hori-

zontal division of that land owned by Jupiter InletCorporation.

The Village has deprived Jupiter Inlet Corporation of the

use of that horizontal layer of land containing the shallow

water acquifer. Jupiter Inlet Corporation is entitled to

compensation for the taking of the layer of its land

containing the shallow water acquifer.


C_







Q-




CONCLUSION




For the reasons set forth in the appellant's

main brief and this reply brief, it is respectfully

submitted that the appealed final judgment must be

reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to

award the plaintiff damages for the loss of its property

rights and to enjoin,.the defendants from withdrawing

water from the shallow water. acquifer.

Respectfully submitted,

JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Appellant
Post Office Drawer E
601 Flagler Drive Court
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
.(305) 659-3000



B arjor~e D. Gadarian
Marjorde D. Gadarian


_______ C_~__C~__ ~_____r _~_














CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing

has been furnished to JOHN C. RANDOLPH, Attorney for

Appellees, 1115 Harvey Building, West Palm Beach, Florida,

33401 by mail, this 25th day of October, 1976.
JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Appellant
Dost Office Drawer E
$ West Palm Beach, FL 33402
.(305) 659-3000



By __ _. _ia
Marjcgrie D. Gadarian










IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA




JUPITER INLET CORPORATION, a )
Florida corporation, )

Appellant,

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-783

THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, a )
Florida corporation, and )
THOMAS J. LITTLE, )
WILLIAM E. LEONE, WILLIAM J. )
TAYLOR, DOROTHY M. CAMPBELL, )
and ALMEDA A. JONES, Town )
Councilmen of the VILLAGE OF )
TEQUESTA,
)

Appellees. )





An Appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County




BRIEF OF APPELLANT





JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A.
Attorneys for Appellant
Post Office Drawer E
601 Flagler Drive Court
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
(305) 659-3000


~.._,-~. ,,..1.,.,.,- ,~^,,-,,rg~ Irr,~*mmr~cy; r--- -Lm-^--.-, I-----rrrr-rr~, ,.-~.--- -r -------l~lr~.---rn r~a- ------rmrri~-r~
-.i-










TOPICAL INDEX


Page



PREFACE i

TABLE OF CITATIONS ii

QUESTION PRESENTED 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 4.

ARGUMENT 6

CONCLUSION 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14





C



PREFACE


This is an appeal from a surm.ary final judgment
entered in defendant's favor by the Honorable Lewis
Kapner in the 15th Judicial Circuit. The appellant
was the plaintiff below and the appellees were the
defendants. Throughout this brief the parties will
be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.
The following symbol will be used throughout
this brief:
R Record on appeal








TABLE OF CITATIONS
-Page

Cason v. Florida Power Co. 9
76 So. 535 (Fla. 1917)

City of Jacksonville v. Schumann 11, 12
167 So. 2d 95 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1964)
172 So. 2d 597 (cert denied)

Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. 11
Benitez
200 So. 2d 194 (2nd D.C.A. Fla., 1967)

Koch v. Wick 8, 9, 11
87 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1956)

Labruzzo v. Atlantic Dredging and 9
Construction Co.
54 So. 2d 673, 29 AGR 2d 1346 (Fla. 1951)

Ocean Villa Apartments, Inc. v. 11
City of Ft. Lauderdale
70 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1951)

Poe v. State Road Dept 7
127 So. 2d 898 ( D.C.A. Fla. 1961)

Selden v. Jacksonville 7
28 Fla. 558, 10 So. 457 (Fla. 1891)

Tampa Water Works Company v. Cline 11
20 So. 780 (Fla. 1896)


OTHER

Florida Eminent Domain Practice & Procedure 7, 8
10.6 (2d ed. 1970)

29A CJS, Eminent Domain, 110 8

12 Fla. Jur. Eminent Domain 5 68 7

Florida Constitution: 11
Art. X, 6 (a)
Art. I, 9
Art. I, 21

Maloney, Plager and Baldwin 10
Water Law and Administration
ne Fliorlia experience -?.2 (c) 1963


-I~--l~-rsar~rr;ln~~aCCL~L~-e~l~a,--~ ~li~~*9~~*~a~CI*l*IIIIIC~




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