Does the FWF hire bad attorneys or do they sue to generate donations?
I did not vote for Amendment 1.
I typically vote “no” on all constitutional amendments.1
They only thing I dislike more than the mob rule of the public passing constitutional amendments is when the state gets sued by conservation groups. So when the FWF announced triumphantly that the would be suing the government over Amendment 1, I did not renew my membership and sent an email to the president of FWF that cited that I would not support an organization that sues taxpayers. I asked the FWF president why, since Amendment 1 passed with overwhelming support, that FWF could not find one legislator that would sponsor a bill that would craft a better law. I thought any opposition to such a bill would be political suicide and the conservationists would have the upper hand.
Here is an update on Amendment 1: Amendment 1 Lawsuit Cost.
I choose organizations that work with government and policy makers, not those that generate frivolous lawsuits that sound good and we all end up paying for, sometimes for a decade....
I recently received an email from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) with a news release stating that an they had prevailed in an important legal case in Appellate Court. The case was filed by the FWF and some other groups 10 years ago. Being the legal junkie that I am coupled with the fact I was a previous supporter of the FWF, I looked up the case and was astounded after I read the Appeals Court Ruling. It was reaffirmation of why I stopped donating the FWF.
The court’s ruling can be found here: FWF vs Army Corps of Engineers
In summary, the FWF sued the Army Corps of Engineers to force them to regulate the flow of Lake Okeechobee for environmental reasons. Sounds great, right? Except this duty is the sovereign right of the State of Florida, which it executes through the SFWMD. But SFWMD was removed from the lawsuit because of sovereign immunity. The Army Corps of Engineers' responsibility in this matter is limited to maintenance and navigation. One has to ask: Just where were they going with this lawsuit? The court openly asked why the lower courts allowed this case to proceed.
The court ruled (emphasis added):
“In line with the case-by-case nature of these determinations, which will necessarily result in nonmerits rulings, courts should be careful not to credit such far-reaching and speculative concerns. This is especially true when, as is the case here, the party seeking the broader ruling attempts to do so to the potential detriment of an absent sovereign entity whose absence is itself an independent ground warranting dismissal.”The court went on to further admonish the lower court, which had also dismissed the case but only because the Army Corps of Engineers’ immunity (emphasis added):
“The “concrete form” of the dignity and comity interests at stake in affording the proper respect due the Water District as a sovereign entity also strongly favors dismissing the case because of the Water District’s absence. See Pimentel, 553 U.S. at 865–66, 128 S. Ct. at 2190. By ratifying the Conservationists’ voluntary dismissal of the Water District and unnecessarily proceeding to reach the scope of the Corps’s immunity under the navigation-maintenance exception, the District Court set the stage for a potentially expansive ruling in the Water District’s absence. Granting the Corps broad immunity would directly and adversely affect the delicate balance of power struck by the United States and the State of Florida in their management of the Waterway. The Conservationists, whose narrow concerns in this particular litigation do not align with the full range of regulatory interests possessed by the Water District, cannot be expected to serve as an adequate representative of the Water District if the Water District were not joined as a party. And even if the Water District could have waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or participated as amicus curiae, these limited accommodations would fail to fully vindicate the Water District’s sovereign interests, whether by forcing the Water District to forfeit its rightful immunity from suit or by treating the Water District as little more than an interested bystander. When taken together with the other interests at stake and absent substantial countervailing reasons, the Water District’s sovereign interests strongly favor dismissal under Rule 19(b).”
“Far Reaching and Speculative Concerns” says it all. I wonder where the Amendment 1 lawsuit will be 10 years from now. Hopefully it will be resolved sooner than that.
*********************************************************************************
1 I did not vote for Amendment 1 because I am against the whole voting for State Constitutional Amendments by public vote. Despite having good intentions, the process creates bad law. I believe that despite the arguing, grandstanding, long and grueling legislative process produces the best laws. Staffs are involved, community input is solicited (usually from interested parties that the law has a direct effect), and every effort is made to address all concerns and loop-holes and pit falls are considered. Even with this process, laws usually are found to be lacking, some things come up that appear to obvious in hind sight but were not considered in the draft. At that point, the law is amended by the legislators or the courts interpret the law as written (at least I hope “interpret” and not write new law).
Consider what happens when the “public” passes a law. Laws are passed by public vote by design are grossly lacking, overly simplified, and full of loop-holes. Amendment 1 was no exception: The Real Amendment 1
