This year’s Florida legislative session ended on Friday with lawmakers declining to pass a bill that would have restricted lawsuits seeking economic damages or damages for personal injuries under the provisions of a state water-quality law.
House Bill 789, sponsored by Toby Overdorf (R-Palm City), died in the House of Representatives on Friday after receiving favorable votes from several committees. Supporters of the measure, such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida, argued that the measure would have reduced legal uncertainties for businesses in the state.
“The Water Quality Assurance Act (WQAA) creates a private cause of action for all damages resulting from a pollutant discharge or other condition of pollution covered under the WQAA if the discharge was not authorized by a governmental approval or (permitting authority) relating to environmental control,” the House’s analysis of the bill states.
HB 789 would have limited lawsuits for damages under the WQAA to those affecting real or personal property for covered governmental actions, the analysis says. But the bill would also have expanded the covered activities to pollutant discharge prevention involving substances such as oil or gas, ammonia, chlorine or pesticides, according to the bill.
Groups such as the Southeastern Fisheries Associations, whose members include multi-generational Florida families who provide fresh seafood to consumers, have expressed concerns about the bill, citing the effects of uncontained industrial spills into the state’s many waterways.
“The language in these bills states that any effort to seek compensation for damage caused from such a spill can only apply to damage to real or personal property,” Bob Zales, executive director of the fisheries association, said in an email to the Florida Record. “Clearly, fishers do not own the waters or the bottom, so they would not qualify to seek restitution from the damage caused.”
Such industrial spills have occurred in the past and can happen in future years, according to Zales.
“Should such a spill happen and cause fish kills, harm the bottom habitat and cause fishers to lose their ability to harvest seafood … these fishers could lose their ability to provide for their families and support for their local fishing communities,” Zales said.
In addition, the bill could lead to economic harm to fishing-guide, tour-boat and dive-boat operators, he said.
A Florida Supreme Court ruling in 2019 concluded that the WQAA does allow for litigation resulting from personal injuries.
The WQAA imposes a strict liability standard whereby private lawsuits can be successful without proving negligence, according to the Legislature’s analysis of the bill. Such lawsuits only need to demonstrate that a discharge in violation of the law took place.
Environmental groups opposed the bill even though it went through changes at the beginning of the year.
“Friends of the Everglades remains very concerned about a remaining provision in the bill that would prohibit citizens from suing polluters for personal injury or economic damages, if the event that caused the injuries was duly permitted or authorized by a government agency,” the Friends of the Everglades group said in a prepared statement in February.
The bill also would have mandated that storm water management systems not installed by industries have side slopes that conform to specific design criteria.