The Saga of Drainage into Lake Ola
 |
From: Ned Bowers
Sent: 4/19/2020
To: Recipients Redacted
Subject: Orange County Permit Application - Drainage into Lake Ola
As everyone is aware, I have been in a fight to protect my property rights for over 10-years. In December 2019, the case went through a 5-day bench trial. Fees the County will eventually pay are north of $800,000 and the damages trial will tack on another $200,000. That may be a reason to never oppose the government. Just allow them to do as they please no matter the harm. Be it known, I support good government. I only oppose corruption in government along with a coverup.
The defense was terrible; embarrassing. But suing the government is every bit as difficult as people say. This was no exception. The first trial on October 22, 2018, was a complete bust. Part of the blame was that, unknown to me, Orange County solicited St Johns for a "permit" and received a "permit" which was introduced to the court at the last second against court rules. The judge accepted the evidence even though, legally, it was inadmissible. The judge then refused to allow me due process among other courtroom blunders. There were at least 5 appealable offenses performed by that judge.
Part of the appeal process is to first appeal to the judge for reconsideration which rarely is granted but it is procedural. The rarity became reality as the judge, to everyone's shock, overturned himself. What that circus taught me was my weakness in the case and the County showed their only hand.
I then built a coalition of attorney experts in the field of inverse condemnation and Water Management. I hired more experts in engineering. I hired two pitbull lawyers out of South Florida where court battles are settled with other means of convincing. They think outside the box and know how to deal with the corruption that I was facing.
The December trial proved if you want to win a Super Bowl, hire the best of the best, prepare, prepare, and prepare. Yes, this costs money, but in condemnation and pollution litigation, the opposing side gets to pay for it. Yes, that is the taxpayer that eventually pays the bill.
The damages trial, delayed for obvious reasons, is in October and we get to play the game all over again; but at the expense of the taxpayer that pays the fees for the defense and my fees. The County attorney seems to have no leash.
To date, in fees alone, Orange County taxpayers are north of $2 million in fees between their costs and mine. Then, there are damages. Then there are clean up costs. I should also add interest over a ten-year period since 2010 when Orange County created an unpermitted drainage system into Lake Ola.
The County is now attempting to limit costs by literally lying to St Johns to obtain required permits for their actions in 2010. If St Johns issues the latest permit application,
1) Orange County wins, St Johns loses.
2) Taxpayer gets burned for $2-$3 million
3) Bowers is reimbursed for costs and condemnation with interest
4) Property rights are slaughtered for all of us; the government can do as they please while hiding behind sovereign immunity.
5) Bowers property takes the burden of a massive drainage diversion with no pollution abatement
6) Lake Ola takes another hit in drainage with no pollution abatement.
7) After St Johns loses at more taxpayer expense, Orange County gets to purchase property rights from the property owner that caused this mess and pay him for an easement.
8) That property owner wins.
9) Taxpayers lose big time.
Everyone should understand the genesis of the drainage dispute and I make that assumption. If you sense that this fight is all about ego, you are correct. I am trying to protect my property rights and have put up a fight not expected. The County has an ego with taxpayer money to back them. They cannot let an unknown citizen from Tangerine dictate County policy.
Understand, any time my team approaches the commissioners or St Johns, they all believe this is a property dispute and Bowers is attempting to overturn eminent domain laws. Part of that is that the County attorneys tell them that. The other part is they are genuinely lazy people refusing to question their own lawyers.
They do not tell them that a new drainage system was constructed when a property owner with influence into the County Planner's Office decided to clear cut his property and truck in tons and tons of fill. The property owner was cited, but then the citations all disappeared. With such influence into the County, the property owner then decided that the runoff on his lakefront property was inconvenient, so he piled dirt at the discharge area of the crossover drain (witness testimony in court). This effectively created a dam causing water to back up on the north side of Lake Ola Drive. The flooding ran through Ron Holmstrom's house. Holmstrom filed a complaint and a day later the property owner that caused it filed a complaint. Public Works responded with marching orders to not consider removing the fresh dam that caused the flooding. Instead, they would construct a 407-foot pipe to eventually diver his water to my lakefront property. The County, in five minutes, could have removed the dirt blocking the water flow. Oh, the power of influence.
Orange County attempted to claim that water ran from the west to the east via a small swale system and that the 407-foot pipe was only "repair and replace" and was exempt. They made this claim despite Google maps and local resident testimony that no such swale system existed. There is not a statute or District rule or case law that supports this claim but they spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money to hire an expert to prove "something there" in a lame attempt to suggest that water ran west to east.
The court flatly rejected the plot. The court also rejected any claim that water ever reached Lake Ola via the Bowers property.
This project was constructed with no pollution abatement as required by statute. We obtained lab tests that traced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus entering Lake Ola that came from the unpermitted fill.
In the Court's final ruling, the judge played a tight rope to prevent an appeal. She basically left the resolve to St Johns to permit these actions. At first glance, that seems reasonable if we all trust St Johns. She did not enter an injunction to the 407-foot diversion pipe as suggested in F.S. 403.412. This will be appealed on multiple counts. But the first action is to insure that St Johns reads the court order based on facts of evidence.
Here is the point of this request for action: Orange County, in permit application(s) to St Johns, grossly misrepresented the facts. If you cannot believe this, simply read the Amended Final Judgment from a court of law versus the application (both attached).
Understanding that most people have better things to do than reading between lines of a stack of documents, I direct your attention to 154996-2, Section A, Page 5 of 9 (D) - There are other blatant errors in this application, but this is the one to focus on.
Even though the County lost miserably in court, yes, they are now outright lying as to the findings of fact by a court of law, in an application to a government agency for a court-ordered permit. Read the Amended Final Judgement, Paragraph 23, 24, and 29. Re-read the application, paragraph D. They are playing off of possession is 9 tenths of the law and a hand spanking is worth the effort.
What the County is attempting to do is shift the liability to St John's as if Orange County was only required to obtain a permit. If you think this is improper, unethical, or immoral, it is, but it is the extent that the County attorneys will spend our money. While I methodically fight this, taxpayers eventually pay the mounting fees.
In a virtual meeting with St Johns last Thursday, the St Johns attorney was not prepared and did not understand this case. St Johns will issue permit 154996-2. It will be opposed and taxpayer money will continue to mount until we hit $4-million in costs and fees.
What Orange County is doing is attempting to convince the court that they have lawful drainage works to dump untreated water into Lake Ola. If St. Johns issues the permit, what else is a court supposed to do? They are the experts. correct?
I have posted 4 objections to this application on the SJRWD E-File Portal. As I am the only one carrying this fight, the government entities are wondering where the other affected homeowners are and why they are not fighting.
Sometime next week, St Johns may issue this permit. I am asking everyone to go to this portal and respond by objecting to this application. What really affects us all, in the application, the County is attempting to avoid the required pollution abatement requirements embedded in any construction permit. They are avoiding this by claiming, "repair and replace". If you deep dive into the ERP Handbook, there is no such exemption, only, St Johns refuses to abide by their own laws that are written in statutes. They refuse because they have been directed to refuse as it stymies business in the State of Florida. But this is our lake that St. Johns and Orange County could care less if it becomes Lake Apopka. We are Tangerine with no representation.
I ask that you simply log on and ask where the pollution abatement description is in the application. Also ask why, by statute and ERP-Handbook requirements involving waters of the state, why persons are not being notified as required. Google SJRWMD E-Permitting. See the 3rd attachment to see how to navigate the site. https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Login.jsp
If we do not stop this application, the penalty to me is minor compared to the long term penalty to all of us.
Copy this string into your search and it will take you right to the comment form.
Here is a suggested comment:
This application describes an unpermitted drainage works constructed by Orange County in 2010. The claims are false and violate a recent court order. The referenced 407-foot system was 100% new construction to divert surface water. There was no swale and there was never flow of water from west to east as claimed. There is no provision for pollution abatement into Lake Ola.
Please call me if you have any trouble getting through the portal.
As an add on to this madness, look at the 2018 154996-1 permit.
Think about what that permit does. They are eliminating the swale by installing a pipe. An 18-inch pipe. The original flow to Lake Ola was zero. The Court accepted that there was evidence of a 12-inch pipe that was connected to nothing. First, that violates County Code Chapter 30 to increase the flow rate. Second, it indicates Orange County has future plans for drainage into our Lake.
Note where they claim that, due to erosion, the concrete pipe eliminates sediment into the lake and improves the quality of water introduced into Lake Ola. There is no erosion and court documents proved that the pollution was not coming from the swale alongside Bowers and Bloodworth. Evidence shows that pollution is coming from the 407-foot diversion property. The final 200-feet of the swale, as it exists, is the last filtration property for these nutrients. By installing a concrete pipe, it only accelerates the rate and amount of nutrients that get into the lake. Just like they did on Lake Street and 441 with no permits.
So what is the true purpose of permit 154996-1? The cost to the taxpayer to construct a pipe is $50,000 to $100,000. So, you may ask, what is the purpose other than to pretend the County is concerned with pollution into our lake.
Notice that they are moving the pipe 10-feet closer to my house.
Purpose? The County permitted my utility shed in 2007 that is located partially in a 1969 easement they never used until 2020. The permit was a mistake on my part but a worse mistake on the County's part that they issued it. The County has fought to remove the shed in court for over 6-years even though court documents issued by the County state "the shed does not interfere with the easement/drainage". They have made a capital case out of it no less than 4-times in various motions and have lost every time including a loss last week on the same subject.
The fees alone for the 4th hearing over the shed was $35,000 in one month on my just my side. That is taxpayer money as this is eventually awarded back to me in October. Why not just relocate the shed? Please, could anyone help me there? Move it where? If I could determine where it can be moved, I would prefer to fight other fights than this stupid one.
The County applied for this permit (154996-1) and received the permit as a scheme to remove the shed. It gets worse. The pipe planning cost the County $160,000 in engineering fees. Our money. Only the original engineering plans based on the 2nd of now three surveys show the shed beyond the 10-feet. $160,000 and they still got it wrong.
Orange County, in March, paid for a third survey to use the first survey's incorrect angles off the east-west monuments. The 1926 plat uses an angle of 91 degrees 50 minutes. The first survey the County attempted used 89 degrees 54 minutes. This is incorrect, but the County attempted to claim the easement they needed from me was no longer needed. The court disagreed and $160,000 in fees placed the markers back to the 1926 plat. To get the shed back in the path of the sham pipe project, the County re-surveyed in March and re-claimed the first survey contrary to court evidence. They then changed the plans in the application in 154996-2 to insure they can eliminate the shed.
Ego versus basic property rights. At taxpayer expense.
As always, I appreciate your time and support. But if I eventually prevail, we all prevail. If I lose (do not eliminate the 407-foot diversion), we all lose.
We need to start planning on our vote in 2022 for some representation.
Regards,
Ned
Comments
Post a Comment