I had expected Kevin Stinnette to be in the mix somewhere.

The 5th Amendment huh? I suppose that the theory is that they were deprived of property, without due process of law? I am curious to see if their land surveys indicate that their property boundaries extend into the water...

2:09:52 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BETTY NELSEN | 11.09.06 - 2:14 pm | # |Report as offensive

Thank you to all, I wish you the best of luck and I am now willing to contribute now that the lawsuit has been filed. That means we are serious about this.
And Mrs. Nelsen, since you are not an attorney, I wouldn't expect you to understand the legal argument.
Too bad the 1950s suit didn't win, today we would look like Jupiter Inlet. Just think how much more our property values would be if our rivers were healthy and crystal clear like they use to be.

2:32:36 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BETTY MURPHY | 11.09.06 - 2:37 pm | # |Report as offensive

Betty Murphy, I think that I understand the legal 5th Amendment argument quite well. I just don't necessarily think that it will be successful. Feel free to try and explain if it is saying anything more than the lawsuit is based on the concept that these people should get money because they have been deprived of property, without due process of law.

3:23:14 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BETTY NELSEN | 11.09.06 - 3:28 pm | # |Report as offensive

With the amount of uncontrolled humanity moving into that area of Florida what the hell do you expect???? The water will be polluted, the wildlife that once roamed that area gone and the fish will be gone. If he wants his grand children to swim in clean virgin waters then he should have moved up to Northern Wisconsin or maybe Utah where wildlife and woods are still the majority. sheeeesh what an idiotic thought to think you can move to Florida and expect clean swimming, no sewage waste from mankind and what was it??? fresh good fish?? Make me laugh!!! The jest of Florida has become an overcrowded sewage. Yuck The good old days are gone. Move somewhere else. Cold winters aren't the worst thing in the world for crying out loud. I can't believe this moron is complaining without any research.

3:31:30 p.m. on November 9, 2006
ERICH KOEHLER | 11.09.06 - 3:36 pm | # |Report as offensive

This lawsuit will fail. No such rights exist under the 5th Amendment. Please see the law review article of:

Waters. Riparian Rights. Property in Flow of Stream
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Sep., 1945), pp. 792-795
doi:10.2307/1117873
Anonymous | 11.09.06 - 4:28 pm | # |Report as offensive

"Anonymous" seems to understand my comment.

Particularly please see paragraph #33 in the Complaint (lawsuit). That is the part that they will have the toughest time proving.



4:34:36 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BETTY NELSEN | 11.09.06 - 4:39 pm | # |Report as offensive

Bold actions always bring out reactions from people who sit on the sidelines for no other purpose than to critize the efforts of others. Why weren't you at all of the meetings with your "expertise". It's just like the election results. If you didn't vote, don't complain. You should be wishing us well, none of the plaintiffs are seeking profit, this is being done for the benefit of everyone. If you had attended the rally today you would have known that too!

5:25:14 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BILL BOBB | 11.09.06 - 5:30 pm | # |Report as offensive

The harm has been done and will continue to be done until we learn to live in the envrionment differently. I am not an environmentalist or a tree-hugger or anything else and don't need to be one to understand that we are running our planet to its death.

If this lawsuit even had the remotest chance of being won, I would say the money should be used to work on solutions for better living wiht the river instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and select propery owners.

Any body know why Lake O is such a mess? Is it because we engineered it to protect lands form flooding for our benefit and not natures? I am no expert on that and could very well be wrong and invite anyone to answer the question with facts and not heresay.

5:27:05 p.m. on November 9, 2006
PAUL YOUNG | 11.09.06 - 5:32 pm | # |Report as offensive

I just want to go snook fishing again......will that ever happen...???...AJ(DR.SNOOK)SMITH "THE FLORIDA FISHERMAN".

6:16:25 p.m. on November 9, 2006
AJ SMITH | 11.09.06 - 6:21 pm | # |Report as offensive

WHO ARE WE SUEING? AFTER THEIR ATTY'S AND LEGAL FEES YOU ALL KNOW WHO PAYS FOR IT IN THE LONG RUN. WERE BITING THE HAND THAT FEEDS US. BY THE WAY I BELIEVE WE JUST VOTED IN A HALF CENT SALES TAX FOR PARKS AND LAND USE FOR RIVER CLEANUP. IT TOOK 76 YEARS FOR THIS ISSUE TO COME TO THE TABLE. NOW IT GONNA BE FIXED IN 6 YEARS. I LOVE THIS RIVER AND I FISH THREE TIMES A WK. FLY, SPIN, OFFSHORE... I SUPPORT A CLEAN MAINTAINED RIVER.

7:06:11 p.m. on November 9, 2006
GARY GLEICHMAN | 11.09.06 - 7:11 pm | # |Report as offensive

Riparian rights is an interesting approach. In Florida it is usually related to docks, but apparently out west it is more along the lines of "what you do here affects people down there". Polluting the waters "up there" affects us "down here".

Good Luck!! And thanks!!

7:46:45 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BILL FRONDORF | 11.09.06 - 7:51 pm | # |Report as offensive

I'm flattered that I was expected to be part of this great action but the real credit for this work goes to Karl Wickstrom, Leon Abood, Ted Guy and the legal task force that put this together.
There are three Indian Riverkeeper board members in the St. Lucie River Defense Fund and we are glad to see the action taken. Indian Riverkeeper may still file a Federal environmental law action to bring standards. That is the kind of legal action we have built Indian Riverkeeper to be able to take on.
While I believe that Indian Riverkeeper will still be needed to challenge this and other pollution sources, this group is the right bunch at the right time and I encourage everyone to help them with legal expenses and costs.
The other side will spend our money to defend the trashing of our rivers for the sake of Big Sugar and the EAA.
Thank you St. Lucie River Defense Fund for defending our right to clean water.
Kevin Stinnette
Indian Riverkeeper

10:03:56 p.m. on November 9, 2006
KEVIN STINNETTE | 11.09.06 - 10:08 pm | # |Report as offensive

How come only one family from PSL?

10:07:50 p.m. on November 9, 2006
LILI GONZALEZ | 11.09.06 - 10:12 pm | # |Report as offensive

God I hate when people spout off without having any idea what the hell they are talking about.

"the lawsuit is based on the concept that these people should get money because they have been deprived of property rights"

Wrong. The plaintiffs in this suit will not receive a dime of the money. The Rivers Coalition is behind the suit and any and all proceeds will go to the Coalition to continue the fight. Every single person involved with the coalition and the suit are volunteers. The coalition is made up of many very hard working people who have been working on this for a very long time.

"sheeeesh what an idiotic thought to think you can move to Florida and expect clean swimming"

Wrong, Most of the plaintiffs have lived on the River for many many years. Many going all the way back to when the water was clean. They were hand picked for that very reason. Some of them actually remember catching stone crabs off their docks. Imagine that, stone crabs.

"I can't believe this moron is complaining without any research"

That comment pisses me off the most. Many of the volunteers fighting this fight have been doing so going all the way back to the 1950's. This lawsuit has been in the making since the mid 1990's and some of the best scientific and legal minds on the treasure have been working very hard on doing nothing but "research"
One of the leaders in this fight is Carl Whickstrum, owner of Florida Sportsman magazine. He has dedicated a very significant portion of his life to nothing but conservation causes. He is the man responsible for getting the net ban in the state constitution. If anyone knows how to get this done it is him. He is backed by Mark Perry of the Oceanographic institute, Dr Paul Grey from Audubon, Kevin Henderson and many many more incredibly intelligent people. Way too many to even begin to list them all here.

"This lawsuit will fail. No such rights exist under the 5th Amendment. Please see the law review article of: blah blah blah

Some of the best lawyers on the treasure have been working for a very long time on this. They have been assisted by Lawyers from some of the most successful national environmental groups in the country on winning environmental law suits. They have also retained one of the best law firms in Washing DC to file the lawsuit. But I guess Anonymous and Betty Nelsen have their own law degrees and apparently they know best. Yah right!

"If this lawsuit even had the remotest chance of being won, I would say the money should be used to work on solutions for better living with the river instead of lining the pockets of lawyers and select property owners"

As I already said the plaintiffs will receive no money. It all goes to the river coalition and they are all volunteers. The concept is this: It is not about the 50 million. It is about the billions the Army Corp will be liable for to all the other water front property owners if the Rivers Coalition is successful in this suit. They do not want the 50 million. What they want is that multi billion dollar hammer that will force the Army Corp into settling the suit by agreeing to do the right thing. They want the big lake cleaned, they want he water flowing into the big lake cleaned before it gets there, and they want the fresh water coming out of the lake moved south through a flow way instead of to the east and west. It is a very viable plan.

For those of you who have offered support, it is much appreciated. For you nay sayers, you should get your lazy as$es off your couches and try and do something yourselves to make a difference. Start by contributing to the legal defense fund or buying a boat load of raffle tickets to win the flats boat. And I think you owe the hard working people of the Rivers Coalition an apology for your assinine comments, and maybe a wee bit of gratitude.




10:23:11 p.m. on November 9, 2006
BILLY DONER | 11.09.06 - 10:28 pm | # |Report as offensive

Again, I ask.....

How did all of this become messed up in the first place. It certainly wasn't because we wanted the whole area to become a nature preserve.

We moved here over the years and changed things to suit our needs and "protect" our properties throughout South Florida. The problems we have weren't created by the Army Corp of Engineers because they were bored and had nothing better to do. The things we see now are the results of decades of decisions made in this manner with very little thought about future implication.

If we want to place blame, we need only look in the mirror. If we want this fixed, we need only look in the mirror. If enough people become motivated, resources can be appropriated to deal with the situation. Until enough people do that, not a lot will happen.

Suing the Army Corp will only result in 50 million dollars less in their budget to fix something else we have messed up.

3:49:15 a.m. on November 10, 2006
PAUL YOUNG | 11.10.06 - 3:54 am | # |Report as offensive

Billy and POaul, please get off your high horse. You are flat wrong about your assumption that these landowners will get no money.

The lawsuit specifically lists these landowners as Plaintiffs.Paragraph #36 says that Plaintiffs have been damages in an amount estimated to be $50 million. Okay you say that the Rivers Coalition will get all the money? Well, guess what? The rivers coalition isn't even listed as a Plaintiff. The Prayer for Relief (end of the lawsuit) asks for a money judgement ($50 million) for the compensation "owing to each Plaintiff" for the physical taking of their property.

These people WILL get money if the lawsuit is successful. Unless each of the Plaintiffs signed something saying that they give up all rights to any money received from a successful lawsuit, then they will be receiving money.

I happen to agree with the concept of this lawsuit, but please don't try and hide the ball. Money IS a driving factor, otherwise the lawsuit would not have been asking for $50 million to go to these landowners.

7:11:29 a.m. on November 10, 2006
RICHARD SCHERER | 11.10.06 - 7:16 am | # |Report as offensive

Billy -- Erich has no idea what he's talking about. He says "move somewhere else."

He obviously has not been paying attention. These people have been here for years and this fight has been going on for decades, and yet this clown dismisses it in one inane paragraph.

"Without any research" -- Erich proves how amazingly ignorant he is.

9:11:56 a.m. on November 10, 2006
BRIAN BIENKOWSKI | 11.10.06 - 9:16 am | # |Report as offensive

A Richard Scherer, without a demand for money, what would possibly motiviate the government into a forced course of action? Do you really think just a demand for an injunction would get any action? Do you think there may be just a bit more to the lawsuit then just money? By the time this is done, the legal fees for them will probably be over $50 million in 10 years.
There is no other choice people, and, suits like this have won before. With now have a Democrats in the house and congress, lets see if anything changes.
If we can spend billions in Iraq, we can clean up our estuaries. This really is not complicated. All it is about, is a few rich companies that are allowed to pollute.

9:16:47 a.m. on November 10, 2006
BETTY MURPHY | 11.10.06 - 9:21 am | # |Report as offensive

For your information we did sign a legal document that states WE WILL NOT GET A DIME. All money will go to the River's Coalition.

Phil and Gerry Tafoya



9:19:45 a.m. on November 10, 2006
GERRY TAFOYA | 11.10.06 - 9:24 am | # |Report as offensive

First, well spoke Billy Doner. It looks like the initial opposition to the lawsuit has a two prong public relations attack. They will deny that the lawsuit will bring change while also charging that the greedy property owners (all 50 of them) and their slimy money grubbing lawyers just want to take "our" money. This issue isn't about the 50 property owners listed on the lawsuit, nor about the thousands of other individual property owners on the rivers flowing east and west. In my opinion, it is about the Corps of Engineers and SFWMD mismanaging Lake O discharges (i.e., in particular dumping discharges into the rivers east and west instead of south without regard to the harm inflicted downstream). This issue is much broader than just those who live on the river. Water is part and parcel of the lifestyle of Treasure Coast area. It is us.

9:23:03 a.m. on November 10, 2006
ED BLACKBURN | 11.10.06 - 9:28 am | # |Report as offensive

"Unless each of the Plaintiffs signed something saying that they give up all rights to any money received from a successful lawsuit,

Richard
That is correct. How could you assume otherwise? Each of the plaintiffs has already signed any future awards over to the coalition. Did you really think that the Coalition would go out and solicit donations to fund a suit that would benefit a hand full of private property owners? Please! As I said, this has been in the making for a long time and is very well thought out. It is unfortunate that the paper did such a poor job of reporting this story and that people were left on their own to make such moronic assumptions.

"Billy and Paul, please get off your high horse. You are flat wrong about your assumption that these landowners will get no money."



Oh, by the way, I am not making assumptions, unlike you I have the FACTS.

9:36:17 a.m. on November 10, 2006
BILLY DONER | 11.10.06 - 9:41 am | # |Report as offensive

"Again, I ask.....
How did all of this become messed up in the first place?"

Paul
That is a complicated question and I would end up writing a entire thesis if I tried to explain it all. Yes, it is partially caused by local pollution (us) but the bulk of the problem is caused by the fresh water discharges from Lake O. The water comes through a spillway controlled by the Army Corp. via a canal dug by the Army Corp. The water is dumped on us primarily for the benefit of the EAA and Big Sugar to the south and those decisions are made by SFWM and the Corp. So yes , the Corp is primarily to blame. For over 50 years local activists have attempted to the get SFWM and the Corp to adopt more reasonable policies through ever possible means except litigation. All we have ever gotten is lip service. The Corp calls it "shared adversity" except the only ones who ever experience any real "adversity" is US and our neighbors to the west (and they get it worse than we do). Unfortunately the suit is the action of last resort.


For more info on yesterdays announcement check out http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ tre...IVERS_1110.html

10:10:10 a.m. on November 10, 2006
BILLY DONER | 11.10.06 - 10:15 am | # |Report as offensive

Why do people assume that any comment that does not support the rivers coalition must have been authored by someone working for the Army Core of Engineers?
Anonymous | 11.10.06 - 10:50 am | # |Report as offensive

Anonymous
Who do you think people assume that? I certianly would not spend so much time trying to inform some of these posters of the facts if I thought any of them were with the Corp, SFWM, or Big Sugar.

11:11:44 a.m. on November 10, 2006
BILLY DONER | 11.10.06 - 11:16 am | # |Report as offensive

i don't know if this is the right way to go with this, but good look. I think that the number of national and state parks that are adverselly affected by the polluted water would be a better grounds for a lawsuit....

1:02:04 p.m. on November 10, 2006
MITCHELL DUNBAR | 11.10.06 - 1:07 pm | # |Report as offensive

Does anybody see a failure by the Florida state government in this ongoing destruction of the river system? To the Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District and Big Sugar, add the Florida House and Senate, and governor's office to the guilty parties.

1:03:22 p.m. on November 10, 2006
LESLIE STEMPEL | 11.10.06 - 1:08 pm | # |Report as offensive

Great, About time a lawsuit was filed. They have always assumed that it was just words. Now it is action. I'm also willing to contribute to this worthy cause.

4:50:53 p.m. on November 10, 2006
JAMES WEINERT | 11.10.06 - 4:55 pm | # |Report as offensive

I applaud everyone who is working to make this area a better place to live. Can someone please post where we can go buy these raffle tickets to help support the cause.

Big sugar and corporate america have enough money I've lived all over the country and moved here to raise my family because of the river, beaches and weather. That was 5 years ago and the river keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.

Whats wrong with taking care of the area you live in and fighting for whats right? It amazes me what some people will argue against just for the sake of arguing. You guys aren't politicians by any chance?

2:11:00 p.m. on November 16, 2006
WILL ROSSELLE | 11.16.06 - 2:15 pm | # |Report as offensive