Executive Summary
This statutory notice constitutes a formal claim under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (F.S. §70.001), combined with a federal preemption notice addressing what the claimant alleges are unlawful regulatory actions by Miami-Dade County DERM and SFWMD affecting private agricultural property in the Las Palmas Community (8.5 Square Mile Area).
The document identifies alleged ultra vires actions, misclassification of agricultural land as wetlands, coercive regulatory practices, and potential violations of federal law (Supremacy Clause, Everglades National Park Protection Act, WRDA 2000 Savings Clause). The claim is reinforced with certified mail receipts and comprehensive legal disclaimers.
The claim is supported by the following statutes and precedents: §70.001 F.S. (Bert Harris Act); §163.3162 F.S. (Agricultural Lands and Practices Act); §823.14 F.S. (Florida Right to Farm Act); §193.461 F.S. (Greenbelt Law); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013); and the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause per McCulloch v. Maryland.
Formal Notice & Parties
Recipients
- Lisa Spadafina, Director, Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), Regulatory and Economic Resources Department (RER), Miami-Dade County — 701 NW 1st Court, 4th Floor, Miami, FL 33136
- Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney, Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office — 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 2810, Miami, FL 33128
- Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, Miami-Dade County Mayor's Office — 111 NW 1st Street, 29th Floor, Miami, FL 33128
Claimant
ADRI MARC S.A., as Trustee on behalf of LA CABAÑA LIVING LAND TRUST
8901 SW 157 Ave, #16-167, Miami, FL 33196
Subject Property
Legal Description: 15 55 38 4.81 AC M/L S1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS W25FT FOR R/W OR 16425-4368 0794 1
Approximate area: 4.81 acres within the broader 8.5 Square Mile Area (Las Palmas Community, ~8,500 acres)
Legal Basis for Relief
Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (§70.001 F.S.)
"When a specific action of a governmental entity inordinately burdens an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner is entitled to relief…" — §70.001(1), Florida Statutes
The Act provides a cause of action against government entities when their regulatory actions impose an inordinate burden on a landowner's existing or vested property use. Relief may include compensation for loss of value or a modification of the governmental action.
State Preemption Statutes
- §163.3162 F.S. — Agricultural Lands and Practices Act: Preempts county and municipal regulation of bona fide agricultural operations; state law governs, not local ordinances.
- §823.14 F.S. — Florida Right to Farm Act: Protects agricultural operations from nuisance claims and improper regulatory interference by local agencies.
- §193.461 F.S. — Florida Greenbelt Law: Provides property tax and regulatory protections for classified agricultural lands.
U.S. Supreme Court Precedent
The claim invokes Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), which extended the Takings Clause to monetary exactions and permit denials that coercively impose financial burdens on landowners — directly applicable to the cease & desist orders and Class IV permit demands issued by DERM and SFWMD.
Koontz Parallel Argument
"Extortionate demands for property in the land-use permitting context run afoul of the Takings Clause… because they impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation." — Koontz v. St. Johns River WMD, 570 U.S. at 607
The claim argues that DERM and SFWMD's actions impose significantly greater and more far-reaching burdens than those at issue in Koontz, as illustrated in the table below:
| Factor | Koontz (2013) | Las Palmas Community |
|---|---|---|
| Property Size | ~15 acres (mostly wetlands) | ~4.81 acres (subject folio) + entire 8.5 SMA community (~8,500 acres) |
| Type of Regulatory Action | Permit denial conditioned on costly offsite improvements | Cease & Desist Orders, Class IV permit demands, regulatory coercion, property devaluation |
| Monetary Impact | ~$376,000 award post-remand | >$150 million cumulative damages (market value losses, legal fees, agricultural income disruption) |
| Duration of Burden | Short-term permit denial | Multi-decade pattern of enforcement and economic suppression |
| Scope of Impact | Single landowner | Entire community of agricultural property owners |
The claim argues that these factors demonstrate the Las Palmas situation is materially more severe and widespread than Koontz, justifying substantial damages and federal intervention under the same constitutional principles.
Federal Preemption & Supremacy Clause
The notice asserts that DERM and SFWMD's actions directly conflict with the following federal statutes and agreements:
- P.L. 101-229 — Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
- P.L. 108-7 — Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003
- CRS Report RS21331 — Congressional Research Service, 2005
- 2022 CEPP Environmental Assessment — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- WRDA 2000 Savings Clause — Preserves private property rights within Everglades restoration projects
Under McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), any state or local action conflicting with federal statutes is null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal Agency Action Requested
The notice formally calls upon USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and NPS (National Park Service) to:
- Enforce Congressional mandates protecting Las Palmas Community residents
- Prevent unauthorized regulatory actions by state and county agencies
- Uphold property rights guaranteed under P.L. 101-229 and P.L. 108-7
- Suspend federal funding or approvals enabling local agencies to bypass federal protections
Specific Regulatory Violations Alleged
Actions Alleged
- Misclassification of agricultural land as wetlands without scientific basis
- Issuance of Cease and Desist Orders beyond legal authority
- Class IV permit demands imposed coercively on landowners
- Coercive devaluation of property through EEL Program acquisitions
Agreements & MOAs Alleged to Be Violated
- 2016 Florida MOA (Final Executed)
- 2020 MOA (USACE/FDEP)
- SPGP VI (2021)
- SFWMD Operating Agreements (1998, 2007)
- Wetland MOU (2006)
- DERM's Limited Proprietary Authority — 1995 MOA MA-13-114
Damages & Formal Relief Requested
Claimed Damages
The unlawful actions of DERM and SFWMD are alleged to have caused significant harm, including:
- Loss of agricultural income
- Market value devaluation of subject and community properties
- Legal and consulting expenses
Four-Part Formal Demand
- Immediate cessation of all enforcement actions by DERM and SFWMD
- Written confirmation within 10 calendar days that jurisdictional limits will be observed
- Federal intervention by USACE and NPS to enforce compliance
- Suspension of any actions conflicting with P.L. 101-229, P.L. 108-7, CRS Report RS21331, and the WRDA 2000 Savings Clause
Failure to comply was formally stated to result in litigation and referral to Congress and federal oversight agencies.
Service of Process: Delivery Evidence
Original Filing — July 15, 2025
The claim was originally submitted on July 15, 2025, via certified mail with return receipt requested to all three Miami-Dade County offices. USPS tracking records and signed return receipts (green cards) for the Mayor's Office and County Attorney's Office confirm successful delivery. The DERM delivery was returned without signature or official stamp.
Re-Service — July 31, 2025
To eliminate any procedural ambiguity, the notice was re-issued and re-served in person via a licensed process server on July 31, 2025 to all three departments. This was done out of an abundance of caution to reaffirm full statutory compliance under §70.001 F.S. and to preserve all legal rights and remedies.
Supplemental Notice
On July 30, 2025, Mr. Terrence A. Smith, Assistant County Attorney Chief (Housing, Social Services and Economic Development), responded via email acknowledging receipt of the claimant's public records request related to this matter — confirming the County's awareness of the underlying claims.
Mayor's Office: 9590 9402 3219 7196 8657 91
DERM Director: 9590 9402 3219 7196 8658 14
County Attorney: 9590 9402 3219 7196 8658 21
Critical Legal Analysis
Strengths of the Claim
- Strong Clear statutory and constitutional basis for claims under §70.001 F.S. and Supreme Court precedent
- Strong Robust procedural compliance through dual-track service (certified mail + process server)
- Strong Federal preemption argument aligned with recognized constitutional doctrine (Supremacy Clause, McCulloch)
- Strong Koontz extension of Takings Clause directly applicable to monetary exactions and permit coercion
- Strong Comprehensive evidentiary support: USPS receipts, tracking numbers, email acknowledgment from County Attorney's office
- Strong Agricultural preemption under §163.3162 and §823.14 F.S. provides independent grounds to challenge local regulatory authority
Weaknesses & Gaps
- Note Damages exceeding $150M are asserted broadly — itemized appraisals and economic analyses not included in the statutory notice
- Note Federal agency intervention (USACE/NPS) depends on political feasibility and agency discretion; not guaranteed
- Note DERM and SFWMD may present counterarguments based on local regulatory authority and state environmental law interpretations
- Note The nominal $2 claim, while strategically sound for preservation, may need to be elevated promptly to a full damages claim to apply maximum pressure
Key Assumptions
- Land is classified as bona fide agricultural by NRCS; local wetland classification is alleged to be scientifically unsupported
- Federal agencies will recognize the preemption argument and prioritize Congressional mandates
- Documented service on July 31, 2025 satisfies all procedural requirements under §70.001 F.S.
Strategic Pathways for Resolution
🏛️ Administrative Challenge & Mediation
Invoke §70.001 F.S. mediation procedures; seek stay of enforcement; negotiate jurisdictional boundaries with DERM/SFWMD.
Pros: Cost-effective; preserves statutory rights; potential rapid relief.
Cons: Agency backlog; limited authority if federal agencies defer.
Feasibility: High for procedural compliance; Medium for substantive relief
🇺🇸 Federal Intervention Request
Formal request to USACE and NPS to enforce Congressional mandates; suspend conflicting local agency actions; assert Supremacy Clause.
Pros: Leverages federal supremacy; significant pressure on DERM/SFWMD.
Cons: Bureaucratic delays; requires agency alignment with federal mandates.
Feasibility: Medium — depends on USACE/NPS willingness
⚖️ Litigation
Escalate nominal $2 claim to full damages claim (>$150M); file in state or federal court; pursue Koontz/Takings claims.
Pros: Judicial determination; potential substantial compensation.
Cons: Costly, prolonged; requires detailed valuation evidence.
Feasibility: Medium — preparation-intensive but well-grounded
📢 Public & Legislative Advocacy
Coordinate with Las Palmas Community landowners; engage Florida Legislature; raise public awareness via miamidade.watch.
Pros: Community solidarity; potential policy reform; congressional referral.
Cons: Non-binding; requires sustained political engagement.
Feasibility: Medium — most effective as complement to legal action
Recommended Priority Actions
- Confirm and document federal agency engagement (USACE/NPS response to preemption notice)
- Commission formal appraisal and economic analysis to substantiate the >$150M damages claim
- Maintain complete chain-of-custody records for all service, correspondence, and agency responses
- Pursue simultaneous administrative mediation and federal advocacy pathways to maximize pressure
- Coordinate with other Las Palmas Community landowners to aggregate claims and demonstrate community-wide impact
Legal Disclaimers & Reservation of Rights
Expressly Reserved Rights
By submitting this claim, the property owner(s) and/or trustee(s) expressly reserve all rights to challenge the legal authority, jurisdiction, and actions of the governmental entity(ies) involved, including but not limited to objections based on:
- The Agricultural Lands and Practices Act (§163.3162 F.S.)
- The Florida Right to Farm Act (§823.14 F.S.)
- The Florida Greenbelt Law (§193.461 F.S.)
- Federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
- Any other applicable statutory, constitutional, or common law protections
- The right to pursue additional legal or equitable remedies in any appropriate forum