The New Scope of Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act

The Water Quality Assurance Act in Florida prohibits the discharge of pollutants into the water and provides a way for people to sue for damages if there has been an unauthorized discharge. Recently, there have been some court cases and attempts by the Florida Legislature to change the law. The Water Quality Assurance Act (WQAA) defines “pollutant” as anything that can harm people, animals, plants, or property. In a court case, property owners sued a sugarcane farming company for causing damage to their properties with smoke and ash from preharvest burning. The company argued that the only harmful chemical in the smoke was ammonia, so it didn’t count as a pollutant. But the court agreed with the property owners that the definition of “pollutant” was broader, and they had a case. The WQAA also defines “discharge” as any release of pollutants or hazardous substances that affects land and water. This definition was important in a different court case, where defendants tried to dismiss the lawsuit. The WQAA gives property owners the right to sue if their property is damaged by pollution. It also allows for joint liability and strict liability for polluters. It lists specific defenses for polluters, but also allows property owners to seek all damages caused by pollution. In a specific court case, a property owner sued a shopping center for damage to its property from pollution. The shopping center argued it was immune from the lawsuit because it was eligible for a clean-up program, but the court said the program didn’t make it immune from a regular lawsuit. So the property owner was allowed to sue under common law, not just the WQAA. A group of homeowners sued a company for releasing toxic chemicals into the air, water, and soil near their homes. They claimed their properties were contaminated or at risk of contamination, and their property values had gone down. The court didn’t allow an expert’s report on how much the property values had gone down, but still said the concept of property value going down because of environmental damage is part of the lawsuit. In other lawsuits like this, people have asked for things like money to cover the cost of fixing the environmental damage, and even money for getting sick from the pollution. The law that allows people to sue for this kind of thing is meant to help the people who are affected by pollution. Before Lieupo, people couldn’t get money for personal injuries under the WQAA in Florida. But in 2019, the Florida Supreme Court changed that. They said that the law does allow people to get money for personal injuries caused by pollution. This was a big deal because for 10 years, courts had been saying that the law didn’t allow it. So now, if someone in Florida gets hurt because of pollution, they can sue for money to help them. Simon’s Trucking was sued for causing injuries to Mr. Lieupo after a battery spilled from one of its trucks. The trial court initially awarded Mr. Lieupo over $5 million in damages, but Simon’s Trucking appealed. The First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Simon’s Trucking, saying that the law didn’t allow Mr. Lieupo to sue for personal injuries. However, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling and said that Mr. Lieupo could still sue for his injuries. Since then, other courts have used the Lieupo case to say that when a law doesn’t define a word, it should be understood in its regular meaning. No other courts have used the Lieupo case to award damages for personal injury yet. A group of Orlando residents filed a lawsuit against the Orlando Utility Commission and some residential developers, claiming that their properties had been contaminated by pollutants blown from the power plant and from the construction of nearby homes. The residents are seeking compensation for damages, as well as the removal of the pollutants and legal fees. The case was moved to federal court, where the developers argued that their actions did not constitute a violation of the law because they were not directly involved in the pollution. This is the first time a court is considering whether the construction and development of homes can be considered a form of pollution. The court said that the WQAA defines discharge as any release of pollutants that affects the environment. The lawsuit claimed that the developers released pollutants by building homes with contaminated materials. The court ruled that the developers can be sued for this, even though they didn’t directly cause the pollution. This ruling could have a big impact on businesses and industries. Now, they could be sued for causing personal injuries from pollution, not just property damage. This is a big deal for construction companies and developers who could be sued for building near polluted areas, even if the polluters are following the rules. During the 2021 legislative session, there were proposed changes to Florida’s Brownfields Program, but the bills did not pass. The proposed changes aimed to limit damages from prohibited discharges and address personal injury damages. It is likely that similar legislation will be proposed in the future to address the issue. This is a collection of legal cases from Florida courts. They involve disputes about environmental issues and the legal remedies that can be used to address them. The cases include arguments about whether plaintiffs can seek equitable relief for their claims and the proper interpretation of statutes. One case involves a class action lawsuit against a utility company and other entities, and there are motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Another case discusses the availability of injunctive relief for claims related to pollution. This is a statement from the Environmental and Land Use Law Section. It talks about a court case and references some legal opinions.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-new-scope-of-floridas-water-quality-assurance-act/