LAS PALMAS COMMUNITY · THEY WERE HERE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE WATER
The Las Palmas Community did not begin with DERM, Garcia, or today’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Roads, drainage, farms and human use existed here generations earlier. A small flood-protection system and roads appear on County maps before 1936, the community’s 22-mile secondary drainage system provided positive drainage from the late 1930s, agriculture is documented in aerial photographs from the 1950s, and Miami-Dade County’s own Property Appraiser records document a residence built in 1965. Families established homes, orchards, nurseries, farms and livelihoods on land the County permitted, taxed and recognized as private property.
Then government changed the water. In 1983 Congress authorized the Experimental Water Delivery Program, allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Florida Water Management District and Everglades National Park to raise water levels experimentally for the benefit of the Park. Congress itself recognized that these changes could damage existing homes: the same legislation authorized flood-protection measures specifically for homes affected by modifications to the water-delivery schedule. The water-management program moved forward; the promised protection did not.
In 1989 Congress acted again. The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act directed additional changes to restore water deliveries to Everglades National Park while expressly requiring protection of the already-settled community those changes would affect. Congress “authorized and directed” the Secretary of the Army to construct a flood-protection system for the developed Las Palmas Community. The system was designed and federally funded, yet the protection Congress ordered was not delivered as originally planned. Later, the record cited in the community history concluded that Test Iteration 7 — Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park played a major role in the flooding.
What followed was years of government-controlled high water, blocked drainage, flooded roads, farms and homes, restrictions on private property, and increasing pressure to acquire the very community Congress had ordered protected. Families who wanted to remain on their land were pushed toward becoming so-called “willing sellers.” Garcia v. United States, No. 01-801-CIV-Moore was the community’s federal-court response to that contradiction: government had been directed to protect Las Palmas, yet the course of government action had moved toward flooding impacts, acquisition and condemnation of the farms, homes and families that were supposed to be protected.
The struggle did not end with Garcia. Today, Miami-Dade DERM and the South Florida Water Management District remain part of the regulatory system affecting these same lands. The present investigation asks whether land whose hydrology was altered through government water-management decisions is now being treated as naturally occurring wetland, subjected to enforcement and regulatory restrictions, and assigned ecological or mitigation value that can be converted into mitigation credits and financial transactions. In other words: were conditions created or intensified by government action later used as the regulatory basis to restrict, devalue, acquire, or condemn the same private properties—and then convert those conditions into mitigation value?
That is the question MiamiDade.watch is following from the flooding, through Garcia, through DERM enforcement, and into the modern mitigation-credit system.
READ GARCIA v. UNITED STATES — COMPLETE COURT RECORD →
LAS PALMAS EXISTED → GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE WATER → CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE DAMAGE RISK AND ORDERED PROTECTION → THE PROTECTION WAS NOT DELIVERED → FLOODING AND ACQUISITION PRESSURE CONTINUED → GARCIA FOLLOWED → TODAY THE INVESTIGATION FOLLOWS THE REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION, THE MITIGATION CREDITS, AND THE MONEY.
EXPOSE THE SYSTEM. FORCE THE RECORD. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
THE PARTNERSHIP.
For 100+ years, government and Wall Street have operated as one financial architecture. Government creates the power, debt, guarantees, subsidies, restrictions, and mandates; Wall Street converts them into markets, securities, credit, collateral, fees, and profit.
Environmental regulation is another layer: restrict the land, mandate mitigation, create the credit, impose the fee, manufacture financial demand.
Then fragment the accounting. Split the money, liabilities, contracts, and beneficiaries across agencies, funds, authorities, registries, and ledgers. Add political theater, debt-ceiling theater, balanced-budget theater, bureaucratic fog, and an education system that rarely teaches citizens how public finance actually works.
CREATE THE POWER. CREATE THE MARKET. MONETIZE THE OBLIGATION. FRAGMENT THE BOOKS. PROTECT THE INSTITUTIONS. PRIVATIZE THE PROFIT. SOCIALIZE THE LOSS. KEEP THE COMPLETE TRANSACTION OUT OF VIEW. TAX THE CITIZEN.
The investigation follows the chain in both directions: what evidence existed before government acted, and what obligations, payments, restrictions, and court consequences followed afterward.
FOUR MATTERS. FOUR POINTS WHERE THE SYSTEM BECOMES VISIBLE.
These are the working examples behind the mission.
WHEN GOVERNMENT MAKES THE CLAIM, GOVERNMENT SHOWS THE PROOF.
- SCIENCEIdentify the exact F.A.C. 62-340 pathway, vegetation, soils, hydrology, data points, and boundary.
- AUTHORITYIdentify the exact Code provision, statute, delegation, jurisdiction, and scope relied upon.
- PROCESSPreserve the NOV, evidence, hearing record, objections, rulings, deadlines, and judicial-review issues.
- MONEYTrace the bond, mitigation credits, payee, trust fund, ledger, transfer, and final disposition.
IF A CLASS IV WAS ALREADY SIGNED, TEST THE PREMISE.
01 · Independent scientistParcel-specific F.A.C. 62-340 analysis.
02 · USDA / NRCSHydric or non-hydric soil evidence.
03 · USFWS NWIWhether the parcel is federally mapped as wetland.
04 · Historical recordAerials, soil surveys, water tables, canals, pumps, levees, and project history.
05 · DERM's original fileWhat existed before the accusation, permit demand, or later access.
FOUNDING PURPOSE · ORIGINAL SITE MISSION
Why This Site Exists
MiamiDade.watch was launched to expose how Miami-Dade County — through its agency DERM — has systematically abused environmental regulations to devalue land, displace lawful owners, and undermine federal protections. These actions have not served the environment; they have served unchecked development and political convenience.
The property at the center of this case — which I can personally attest to — is held in a Florida Land Trust. It has received continuous agricultural tax exemptions for decades and is officially recognized by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as agricultural land, not wetlands.
While my direct experience involves this specific property, the pattern of enforcement across our small, rural community suggests that other agricultural landowners are being similarly and unjustly targeted. This disproportionate focus on a historically agricultural, economically marginalized area raises serious concerns about selective enforcement, unequal protection under the law, and violations of property rights, due process, and environmental justice.
The land lies within the Las Palmas Community, also known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area — a residential and agricultural community for which Congress specifically provided federal flood-protection and mitigation safeguards in connection with implementation of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-229).
Constitutional Case Summary
This site preserves a structured public record concerning statutory delegation, agricultural land classification, procedural due process, and constitutional property rights under Florida and federal law.
All factual assertions and allegations on this site are intended to be supported by public record documentation, filed materials, and archival copies available in the Reports & Archives section.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY MUST BE READ AGAINST THE FACTS OF EACH MATTER.
The four matters identified above are not interchangeable. Each illustrates a different point in the documented sequence from agricultural land treatment and wetland-mitigation demands, through mitigation transactions and administrative procedure, to judicial review.
The case summaries below use three companion manuals as an analytical framework, not as substitutes for the public record of any particular matter. The Chapter 24 / 8CC / EQCB Field Manual organizes Miami-Dade enforcement authority, jurisdiction, agricultural classification, wetland methodology, property-loss consequences, and judicial-review issues. The Administrative Hearing Defense Manual organizes how authority and evidence are tested and preserved through notice, hearing procedure, objections, the official record, findings, deadlines, and certiorari review. The Bankruptcy Restructuring manual addresses the separate downstream financial problem that may arise when a regulatory classification, restriction, mitigation obligation, impaired valuation, default, collection activity, or foreclosure places the property or its financing at risk.
How these references fit together: The Chapter 24 / 8CC / EQCB Field Manual addresses the asserted regulatory authority and underlying enforcement structure. The Administrative Hearing Defense Manual addresses how that authority and evidence are tested and preserved in the administrative record. The Bankruptcy Restructuring for the Wetland-Impaired Farm manual addresses downstream restructuring, collateral valuation, financing, default, foreclosure, and bankruptcy consequences while treating the regulatory challenge as a separate parallel track rather than a substitute for challenging the underlying government action.
Review sequence: AUTHORITY → EVIDENCE → HEARING / RECORD → JUDICIAL REVIEW → FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES → RESTRUCTURING.
For each matter, the archive therefore asks the same disciplined questions: What forum and authority were actually invoked? What property-specific evidence established the wetland premise? What agricultural classification or protected farm activity was in the record? What procedural steps, objections, evidence, findings, and deadlines were preserved? What financial or property consequence followed? And, where judicial review or financial distress is involved, what does the official administrative record and downstream financial record actually contain?
Documented record: The case summary identifies a $68,063.29 mitigation bond associated with five acres of agricultural use treated as after-the-fact wetland impacts.
Question preserved by the record: Why was the property placed into the wetland-mitigation system at all?
Constitutional and statutory focus: This matter places agricultural land classification, the asserted jurisdictional basis for wetland treatment, and the property-rights consequences of a mitigation obligation directly within the archive's stated review issues. The evidentiary inquiry is the premise that preceded the bond: what scientific showing, statutory authority, classification record, and parcel-specific basis existed before the financial obligation was imposed.
Manual-based review points: Identify the exact forum and Chapter 24 authority invoked; separate local Chapter 24 authority from any claimed delegated state ERP authority; identify the property-specific F.A.C. 62-340 vegetation, soils, hydrology, data points, and boundary evidence relied upon; determine what § 193.461 agricultural-classification and bona fide farm evidence was actually in the record; and trace how the wetland premise produced the $68,063.29 mitigation-bond consequence. The bond is treated as a downstream event to be explained by the underlying authority and evidence, not as proof of those predicates by itself.
Documented record: The case summary identifies a $16,194.58 mitigation-credit transaction and states that scientific resistance existed before that transaction.
Question preserved by the record: Payment does not erase the scientific dispute that came before it.
Constitutional and statutory focus: This matter separates the later financial transaction from the earlier scientific and jurisdictional premise. The archive therefore treats the payment record as part of the evidence, not as a substitute for proof of the underlying classification, wetland determination, agency authority, or procedural validity that preceded the mitigation-credit transaction.
Manual-based review points: Reconstruct the chronology before payment: the original wetland assertion, the agency's authority, the F.A.C. 62-340 methodology and field evidence, any agricultural-classification or farm-activity protections raised, the mitigation demand, and the transaction itself. The manuals' framework requires the scientific and legal predicate to stand on its own record; a later mitigation-credit payment does not answer whether the earlier wetland conclusion, boundary, jurisdiction, notice, or procedure was adequately supported.
Documented record: The case summary describes the progression as procedural momentum → court enforcement and states that language, access, orders, deadlines, and review compounded.
Question preserved by the record: The record must be controlled before procedure becomes momentum.
Constitutional and statutory focus: This matter places procedural due process and record preservation at the center of review. The site therefore tracks the NOV, access and inspection history, evidence, hearing record, objections, rulings, deadlines, and judicial-review issues so later enforcement can be measured against what was actually established and preserved in the administrative record.
Manual-based review points: Fix the forum first, then reconstruct notice and service, access or inspection, disclosure of the agency file, language and participation issues, admissibility and reliability of evidence, objections and rulings, written findings, rehearing or other post-hearing options where available, enforcement steps, and the deadline and record for judicial review. The manuals treat procedural momentum as a chain: an early defect matters most when it is identified, objected to where required, and preserved in the official record before later enforcement relies on the result.
Documented record: The active matter is identified as NOV → Administrative Hearing → Adverse Decision → Circuit Court Review. Administrative proceedings have concluded, and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is currently pending in Circuit Court.
Record now under review: The administrative record is the evidence before the reviewing court. The petition challenges the agency's jurisdictional authority and procedural conduct.
Record-preservation posture: The trustee remained silent so the administrative record would show what the government could prove without the trustee repairing its case.
Constitutional and statutory focus: This live matter brings the archive's jurisdictional-authority and procedural-due-process issues into judicial review. It also provides the current case record against which the site's broader questions concerning agricultural classification, property rights, statutory delegation, agency procedure, and the sufficiency of the administrative record can be examined.
Manual-based review points: Because the matter is now in certiorari posture, the controlling archive question is what the official administrative record shows. The review should identify the exact Chapter 24 / 8CC / EQCB path used; the authority and jurisdiction DERM asserted; the property-specific F.A.C. 62-340 basis, if wetland status was an element; the agricultural-classification evidence and defenses actually preserved; the NOV, exhibits, testimony, objections, rulings, and findings; and the precise procedural and jurisdictional issues presented to the Circuit Court. The companion manual expressly treats certiorari as record review rather than a new evidentiary hearing, making preservation below central to what can be meaningfully reviewed.
Administrative proceedings have concluded. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari is currently pending in Circuit Court. The materials contained within the Reports & Archives section are public record copies maintained for documentation, transparency, and legal review.
Issues presented include:
The archive is structured for legal review and evidentiary clarity.
What DERM Ignored
- Field verification
- Required hydrology data
- Scientifically mandated three-parameter wetland delineation method (F.A.C. Chapter 62-340)
What Followed Was Not Lawful — It Was Abuse
- Cease-and-desist orders without scientific basis
- Forms completed after enforcement began
- Violations of Florida Administrative Code
- Disregard for federal land classifications and trust law
This was not environmental protection. It reflects alleged regulatory overreach with land‑use consequences, including impacts associated with the Parkland/Krome Groves DRI and the 836 Expressway expansion.
Behind the façade of environmental restoration, federal and state agencies — partnering with Miami-Dade County under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) — built a massive hydrologic retention system. Originally meant to restore natural flow to the Everglades, it became a flood control tool for Miami-Dade's low-lying eastward urban areas and a dumping ground for stormwater and waste for the outer westward rural lands.
Before man-made levees, the Las Palmas Community kept nature's balance. Decades of mismanagement by the South Florida Water Management District brought water level chaos: farmland flooded, homes threatened, livelihoods destabilized. The Everglades seepage wall was completed in an effort to correct their mistake. Water levels finally stabilized — but only after Miami-Dade twisted Congress's "willing seller" framework into the coercive EEL program, using Class IV permits as leverage to clear out rural communities.
Today, politicians spin CERP as a triumph, ignoring damage — not only to our rural community but to the Everglades, native peoples whose lands were trampled, and taxpayers footing the bill. Many MDC public servants rotate through county, state, and federal positions, legally stacking multiple pensions across separate systems. This career-hopping, while technically within the rules, leaves taxpayers on the hook for payouts from every tier of government — even when effectiveness and accountability are nowhere to be found.
"This is not restoration. It is alleged regulatory overextension presented as environmental policy."
The Government File Is Not Self-Proving
If DERM calls land a wetland, alleges a violation, issues a cease-and-desist directive, or begins enforcement, the answer is not to treat the agency label as the proof. The response is to force the record to identify the legal authority, the lawful source of the evidence, the parcel-specific scientific data, the methodology actually used, the timing and integrity of the reports, and the evidence supporting every material element of the County's claim.
Require the enforcement record to distinguish local Chapter 24 authority, Chapter 8CC procedure, EQCB jurisdiction, any claimed delegated state authority, and the effect of agricultural classification or other property-specific protections. Do not let different legal authorities blur together into one unexplained assertion of power.
Identify the actual vegetation observations, soils observations, hydrologic indicators and measurements, data points, photographs, maps, boundary work, dates, personnel, and methodology relied upon under F.A.C. Chapter 62-340. The issue is not whether a form contains the word “wetland”; the issue is what field evidence supports the conclusion and how that evidence was obtained and evaluated.
Obtain the original inspection reports, photographs, field notes, emails, drafts, revisions, metadata where available, forms, notices, maps, and later-added material. If documentation was completed or changed after enforcement began, the timing matters. Preserve the sequence so the reader, hearing officer, court, expert, and public can distinguish contemporaneous evidence from later explanation.
Challenge unsupported assumptions through timely objections when required, cross-examination, document requests, expert analysis, proffers, exhibits, and requests for rulings. Preserve what DERM proved, what it did not prove, what evidence was excluded or admitted, and what legal objections were raised so judicial review is not left with a silent or incomplete record.
If enforcement progresses into liens, collection pressure, impaired value, financing problems, foreclosure risk, or restructuring, address those consequences in the correct forum while the underlying regulatory dispute remains separately documented and challenged. Property defense, administrative-record defense, financial survival, and lawful ownership structure are different tools in one coordinated response.
THE RESPONSE: NO ASSUMPTIONS → DO NOT VOLUNTARILY CREATE THE GOVERNMENT'S MISSING EVIDENCE → DEMAND THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY → DEMAND PARCEL-SPECIFIC 62-340 PROOF → DEMAND THE ORIGINAL RECORDS AND TIMELINE → PRESERVE EVERY MATERIAL OBJECTION → CHALLENGE EACH CONSEQUENCE IN THE PROPER FORUM.
These materials are educational and investigative resources, not legal advice. Assertions concerning misconduct, causation, land-use consequences, or regulatory abuse should be evaluated against the underlying public records, scientific evidence, governing law, and adjudicated findings.
This Fight Didn't Start With Me
It began with the leadership, sacrifice, and perseverance of:
The United Property Owners of the 8.5 Square Mile Area, Inc.
A nonprofit committed to defending our land and our future.
Board Members: Lao Aguilera, Rene Revilla, Dionecio Febles, Marco Martinez, Rafael Mesa, Tabitha Varela, Patsy Garcia
I personally know and deeply respect each of these individuals. Their names are included here with appreciation for their years of dedication to our community and the preservation of our rights and way of life.
"To preserve the distinctive character of our community, and to protect the delicate balance between our environment, urban areas, and agriculture."
To those who came before — many who paved the way — I owe more than gratitude. Their sacrifices, along with those of others whose histories are deeply connected to our own — Native Americans, African Americans, Jewish people, Muslims, Haitians, and countless others — are etched into every step of this journey. I stand with all who resist erasure and oppression, working tirelessly to protect the foundation that holds our stories and the wisdom of those who came before us. This mission is not ours alone — it is the continuation of their fight, fueled by the same unwavering commitment to justice, dignity, and truth.
The Fight Has a Solution — Build the Defense Before the System Builds the Case
MiamiDade.watch is not here only to document what happened to Las Palmas. Its purpose is to turn the community's history, public records, scientific evidence, hearing record, and financial consequences into a defense system that a landowner can understand before the next inspection, Notice of Violation, hearing, lien, foreclosure, or forced financial decision.
A disputed classification can affect value, financing, cash flow, collection, and foreclosure risk. The restructuring manual explains the separate bankruptcy track—including the automatic stay, claim and valuation disputes, Chapter 12 family-farm restructuring where the statutory requirements are met, and adversary proceedings where legally appropriate. The regulatory case and the financial case remain legally distinct, but the records can support one another.
Florida's Protected Series LLC framework is examined as a prospective ownership and asset-segregation structure requiring disciplined records and proper association of assets and liabilities. It is also a lens for asking a broader investigative question: where are assets, obligations, risks, and beneficiaries actually placed when transactions are divided among separate legal compartments? Structure must be lawful and prospective—not concealment, fraudulent transfer, or a substitute for challenging the underlying government action.
What's Next
- Publish the evidence — Complete document archive going live in the Reports section as filings are processed for public release.
- ️ Preserve the history — A chronological timeline of events from initial DERM contact through current court proceedings, with supporting documents at each stage.
- Continue the work they began — Expanding the community record to include neighboring landowners who have faced similar enforcement patterns in the 8.5 Square Mile Area.
- Stay updated — Email info@miamidade.watch to be added to the update list when new documents or case developments are published.
Reports & Archives
All publicly releasable case documents, administrative filings, and background research are catalogued in the reports section.
Audio Files
Unpacking Miami-Dade DERM's Alleged "Playbook"
An analysis of the enforcement patterns used by DERM against landowners in the Las Palmas community, examining how regulatory tools have allegedly been used as leverage.
The Hidden Mechanics of Structural Power
A deep dive into how federal, state, and county agencies coordinate — sometimes at the expense of rural landowners — under programs like CERP and the EEL acquisition framework.
Defending Against the Securitization of Soil
How agricultural land is being systematically reclassified and what property owners can do to challenge wetland designations using Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-340.
Administrative Hearing
Audio record of the administrative hearing proceedings — the formal stage before circuit court review. Key testimony and procedural exchanges are preserved here.
Contact & Tips
This is an independent watchdog project. If you have relevant information, documents, or have experienced similar enforcement actions, we want to hear from you.
General Contact
For questions, tips, and general correspondence: info@miamidade.watch
Submit Documents
Have public records, filings, or evidence relevant to DERM enforcement or Everglades-area land rights? Email with a brief description and we'll respond promptly.
Community / Sources
Landowners in the 8.5 Square Mile Area facing similar issues are encouraged to connect. There is strength in a documented, coordinated public record.
Press & Media
Journalists covering land rights, environmental justice, or South Florida regulatory policy are welcome to reach out. All factual claims are supported by public record.