Seadade Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
1 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20214, 2 ERC 1223, 245 So. 2d 209 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public utility seeking to condemn land for a project that affects natural resources, and requires approval from independent governmental authorities, must demonstrate a reasonable probability of obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals and that the condemnation will not result in irreparable environmental damage if those approvals are ultimately denied.
Facts:
- Florida Power & Light Company (Utility) operated electrical generating facilities at Turkey Point, located just north of Seadade Industries, Inc.'s (Seadade) unimproved marshland.
- The Utility proposed to cool two new nuclear generators by drawing water from Biscayne Bay, circulating it through the facilities, and then discharging heated water through a canal into Card Sound.
- The planned discharge canal, 4.5 miles in length and 660 feet in width, was designed to cut through Seadade's property.
- Seadade contended that the proposed canal project was contrary to public interest due to thermal pollution and potential discharge of radioactive material, which would damage Biscayne Bay and Card Sound ecology and violate environmental laws and ordinances.
- Multiple federal, state, and local agencies, including the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, U.S. Department of the Interior, Florida Anti-Pollution Control Board, Dade County Anti-Pollution Control, and Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, needed to approve the discharge project.
- The Utility had not yet secured approval, permits, or licenses from these agencies, and some had specifically denied approval, making the project's operational viability uncertain.
- The Utility had determined that alternative cooling methods for its new generators were not viable due to excessive costs, insufficient technology, lack of experience, danger of salt intrusion, or severe operational difficulties.
- The Utility's new nuclear facilities would require the circulation of 1,800,000 gallons of water per minute, which would be heated by as much as 15° Fahrenheit, making direct discharge into Biscayne Bay undesirable due to cumulative temperature rise and risk to marine life.
Procedural Posture:
- Florida Power & Light Company (Utility) filed a petition in condemnation and a declaration of taking in Circuit Court, Dade County.
- Seadade Industries, Inc. (Seadade) was summoned to show cause why the land should not be taken, and hearings were held on the declaration of taking.
- The Circuit Court, Dade County, entered an Order of Taking in favor of the Utility, granting it a fee simple interest in Seadade's properties for the canal project.
- Seadade Industries, Inc. (appellant) sought a writ of certiorari addressed to the Order of Taking from the District Court of Appeal, Third District.
- The District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the taking but required modification of the quality of title for approximately 430 of the 660 feet width, from fee simple to an easement or term of years.
- The Supreme Court of Florida took jurisdiction to resolve a conflict between the District Court's opinion and its previous decision in Robertson v. Brooksville & Inverness Railway.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public utility have the authority to condemn private land for a project that affects natural resources before obtaining final approvals from all relevant independent governmental agencies, when those approvals are necessary for the project's operation?
Opinions:
Majority - Carlton, Justice
Yes, a public utility can condemn land before obtaining final project approvals, but only if it demonstrates a reasonable probability of meeting all regulatory requirements and that the condemnation will not cause irreparable environmental damage should approvals be denied. The Court found that while the District Court correctly affirmed the taking, it erred by deeming the need for agency approval 'not significant.' Citing Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, which declares the protection of natural resources as State policy, the Court held that the judiciary has the discretion to require condemning authorities to demonstrate that the public interest in safeguarding natural resources is met. This aligns with prior cases like Wilton v. St. Johns County and Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Miller, which emphasize that the necessity for eminent domain is ultimately a judicial question and cannot involve a gross abuse of discretion. The Court distinguished this from Carlor Co. v. City of Miami, which concerned a condemning authority's internal preparations, explaining that this case involves external, independent agencies whose approvals are crucial for the project's practical value and impact on natural resources. The Court determined that Florida Power & Light Company had sufficiently demonstrated that it could adjust discharge temperatures to comply with regulations and that excavation would not cause irreparable harm, thereby meeting the new requirements, and thus affirmed the taking.
Concurring - Ervin, Justice
Justice Ervin concurred with the majority's conclusion but expressed concern about the potential problem if the Utility failed to secure the required permits, leaving it with a fee simple title to land it couldn't use, while disadvantaging Seadade. He suggested that the fee simple title to the condemned land should be considered a defeasible fee, meaning it would revert to Seadade if the necessary permits were irrevocably denied. In that event, Seadade would be required to return the condemnation money. Justice Ervin argued that courts should adapt to modern issues like pollution and ecological hazards by intervening equitably to prevent harsh and abortive legal results and restore the status quo, and that his suggestion would protect the public interest without delaying the project.
Concurring - Drew, Justice (Retired)
Justice Drew agreed with Justice Ervin's observations but stated that he found no authority in the courts to implement such a suggestion. He believed that such complex issues, involving many facets, should be considered and resolved by the Legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the judicial review of eminent domain proceedings, especially for projects impacting natural resources. By establishing a two-pronged test, the Florida Supreme Court empowered courts to scrutinize the environmental viability and regulatory compliance of proposed public works before allowing condemnation. This decision serves as a critical precedent for balancing development with environmental protection, making it more challenging for condemning authorities to take land for projects that are environmentally speculative or lack clear pathways to regulatory approval. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional mandates for natural resource protection.
