Schrader v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 178, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 261, 840 So. 2d 1050 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law utilizing a geographical classification is a valid general law, not an unconstitutional special law, if its purpose is one of statewide importance and impact, and the classification is reasonably related to that purpose, such as protecting an area designated as one of 'critical state concern.'
Facts:
- The Florida Keys were designated by the Legislature as an 'area of critical state concern' due to their unique environmental significance.
- The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) was empowered to develop and operate a comprehensive sewage system for the region.
- The Florida Legislature enacted chapter 99-395, section 4 of which authorized local governments within the Florida Keys to require mandatory connection to a central sewer system within 30 days of notice.
- This law specifically allowed these ordinances to apply to properties with 'package sewage treatment facilities,' which were previously exempt under general state law.
- Relying on this statute, Monroe County and the City of Marathon enacted ordinances compelling these mandatory connections.
- The FKAA passed a resolution authorizing the issuance of sewer revenue bonds to finance the construction of the new sewage system.
- Repayment of these bonds was secured by the revenue expected from the connection and service fees mandated by the new ordinances, including from owners of package plants.
- Christopher J. Schrader was a citizen subject to these mandatory connection ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) filed a complaint in the circuit court (trial court) to validate a proposed $83 million sewer revenue bond issue.
- Christopher J. Schrader appeared at the validation hearing to oppose the validation, arguing that the state law authorizing the ordinances that secured the bonds was unconstitutional.
- The circuit court entered a final judgment validating the bonds and ruling that the challenged state law was a valid general law.
- Schrader (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment directly to the Supreme Court of Florida (the state's highest court), which has mandatory jurisdiction over bond validation cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state law that authorizes only local governments within the Florida Keys area of critical state concern to enact more stringent wastewater connection ordinances an unconstitutional special law passed as a general law?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.
No. A law is a valid general law, not an unconstitutional special law, if it utilizes a geographical classification that is reasonably related to a purpose of statewide importance and impact. The challenged statute, section 4 of chapter 99-395, applies to an area officially designated as being of 'critical state concern.' The primary purpose of the law is to protect a vital state natural resource—the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys—which is a matter of statewide importance due to its connection with key industries like tourism and seafood. The court found that the legislative designation of 'critical state concern' was not a 'guise' for a special law, but a legitimate basis for enacting stricter environmental regulations specific to that unique region. Therefore, because the law relates to a state function and its impact far exceeds the limited geographic area, it was properly enacted as a general law.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Lewis, J.
This opinion does not directly answer the issue but instead challenges the majority's decision to address it. Justice Lewis concurred in the judgment to validate the bonds but dissented from the majority's reasoning for reaching the constitutional question. He argued that the constitutionality of the mandatory connection statute is an ancillary, or collateral, issue that is not proper for a summary bond validation proceeding. Such proceedings, he contended, should be strictly limited to three questions: 1) whether the public body had the authority to issue the bonds, 2) whether the purpose of the bonds is legal, and 3) whether the issuance complies with the law. By analyzing the 'economic feasibility' and the validity of underlying ordinances, the majority improperly and dangerously expanded the scope of judicial review in bond validation cases.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'statewide importance' exception to the Florida Constitution's prohibition against special laws passed as general laws. It establishes that the legislative designation of an 'area of critical state concern' provides a strong, rational basis for geographically specific regulations that might otherwise be unconstitutional. The ruling grants the Legislature significant flexibility to address unique, localized environmental and economic problems with tailored solutions without needing to satisfy the publication requirements for a special law. For future cases, this precedent means that challenges to geographically limited laws will likely fail if the area has been formally designated as critical to the state's interest and the law is rationally related to protecting that interest.
