Educational Purpose Only: This handbook is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice.

No attorney-client relationship is created by use of this material.

Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

MiamiDade.watch

Independent oversight of environmental and property-rights abuses in Miami-Dade County

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DEFENSE HANDBOOK

Wetland Enforcement | Due Process Protection | Record Preservation Strategy

This handbook is structured for formal administrative defense preparation in proceedings involving Miami‑Dade County environmental enforcement actions. It is organized to align with Florida certiorari review standards and quasi‑judicial hearing procedures.

This document is designed for disciplined procedural use. It focuses on statutory authority, evidentiary foundation, methodological compliance, and record preservation — not emotional argument.

Certiorari Review Standard (Formal Statement)

Under Florida law, circuit court certiorari review of quasi‑judicial decisions evaluates:

  1. Whether procedural due process was afforded.
  2. Whether the correct law was applied.
  3. Whether the decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Preservation of objections, identification of legal authority, and clear articulation of prejudice are essential to satisfying this review framework.

Litigation Structure Overview

Administrative enforcement defense should proceed in the following order:

  1. Authority Examination: Identify the statutory basis under Chapter 373.
  2. Procedural Compliance: Confirm Chapter 24 notice and hearing compliance.
  3. Methodology Validation: Require strict adherence to F.A.C. 62‑340.
  4. Foundation Testing: Object to unsupported or conclusory evidence.
  5. Record Preservation: State objections and prejudice clearly on the record.

Professional Conduct and Courtroom Discipline

Continuance and Procedural Motion Framework

Sample Motion Language (Formal):

“Respondent respectfully moves for a continuance on due‑process grounds. The agency’s evidence was not disclosed with sufficient time to permit meaningful review, preparation of expert response, and cross‑examination. Proceeding under these circumstances would materially prejudice Respondent’s ability to defend the matter.”

Evidentiary Attack Structure

Closing Argument Structure (Formal Format)

  1. Restate burden of proof.
  2. Identify missing statutory authority or methodology gaps.
  3. Highlight procedural prejudice.
  4. Request dismissal or continuance based on record deficiencies.

Litigation Readiness Statement

This handbook is structured to ensure that if enforcement proceeds to judicial review, the administrative record clearly reflects statutory challenges, methodological objections, and preserved due‑process concerns in alignment with Florida appellate standards.

Introduction:

Understanding the Legal Framework Behind DERM Wetland Hearings

Administrative hearings involving Miami-Dade County’s Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) operate at the intersection of three core legal authorities: Florida Statutes Chapter 373, Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances Chapter 24, and Florida Administrative Code 62-340. Understanding how these authorities interact is essential to protecting your rights and preserving a record that a reviewing court can rely on.

Florida Statutes Chapter 373 establishes Florida’s statewide water management framework. It governs water resources and the boundaries of environmental authority. It is the “permission layer” for water and wetland regulation — but it does not eliminate constitutional due process rights or excuse shortcuts in procedure.

Miami-Dade Chapter 24 is the local enforcement code DERM uses for notices, citations, administrative hearings, penalties, and compliance orders. It is the “how they prosecute” layer. Chapter 24 procedure must be applied fairly, with meaningful notice and a real opportunity to prepare.

F.A.C. 62-340 provides the mandatory statewide methodology for identifying and delineating wetlands. It dictates how vegetation, soils, and hydrology indicators must be evaluated. This is the “proof layer.” If DERM claims “wetland,” the conclusion should be supported by underlying field data consistent with 62-340 — not just a summary, map label, or conclusion statement.

These three authorities intersect in a predictable sequence:

1) Chapter 373 defines statewide authority boundaries.
2) Chapter 24 provides the local enforcement pathway.
3) 62-340 supplies the required methodology that must support a wetland boundary claim.

If any layer fails — wrong authority, wrong procedure, or missing 62-340 foundation — the enforcement action becomes vulnerable. This playbook shows you how to shift the hearing from assumption to proof — from pressure to procedure — and from narrative to record.

⚠️ READ FIRST — Educational Purposes Only (Not Legal Advice)

This booklet is for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Administrative hearings and appellate deadlines can be strict. For legal counsel, consult a qualified attorney.

Last updated: February 16, 2026

Statutory Hierarchy (Visual Map): Where DERM’s Power Comes From

DERM hearings become predictable once you separate authority, procedure, and methodology. The County can enforce locally, but it must stay inside state law and use the correct statewide wetland method.

1) State Authority Florida Statutes Chapter 373
Sets the statewide water-resource framework and the outer limits of environmental regulation. This is the “authority boundary” layer — but it does not erase due process.
↓ ENFORCEMENT MUST STAY WITHIN STATE LIMITS
2) Local Procedure Miami‑Dade Code of Ordinances — Chapter 24
The County’s enforcement mechanism: notices, citations, hearings, penalties, compliance orders. This is the “how they prosecute” layer — and it must be applied fairly and consistently.
↓ IF “WETLAND” IS CLAIMED, METHODOLOGY IS NOT OPTIONAL
3) Required Method F.A.C. 62‑340 Wetland Delineation Methodology
Mandatory statewide methodology for identifying wetlands (vegetation, soils, hydrology indicators). This is the “proof layer.” If the agency cannot produce underlying field data consistent with 62‑340, the conclusion is vulnerable.
Practical reading:
373 = “authority boundary” • Chapter 24 = “enforcement procedure” • 62‑340 = “methodology + proof.”

Diffusing DERM means forcing them to prove each layer on the record — not letting them skip to conclusions.

Where DERM Commonly Overreaches (And How to Neutralize It)

Overreach is usually not one dramatic act — it is a pattern of shortcuts. Your job is to identify the shortcut, object clearly, and force DERM back into proof and procedure.

Overreach Pattern Conclusion First, Evidence Later
What it looks like: “Wetland” is asserted using summaries, maps, or testimony without field sheets.
How to neutralize: Demand original 62‑340 field data (date, location, indicators) and object to foundation if missing.
Overreach Pattern Procedure as Pressure
What it looks like: late disclosures, unclear Hearing Officer identity, “surprise” exhibits, compressed deadlines.
How to neutralize: Object on due-process grounds at the start; request continuance; preserve denial on the record.
Overreach Pattern Scope Creep (Turning a Narrow Issue into a Blanket Finding)
What it looks like: a small disputed area becomes “the entire parcel is wetland” narrative.
How to neutralize: Force location precision: transects, photo points, GPS, and boundaries. Require DERM to tie each indicator to a specific place and date.
Overreach Pattern Authority Fog (Relying on “Because We Said So”)
What it looks like: broad enforcement language without identifying the exact authority relied upon.
How to neutralize: Require DERM to identify: (1) the specific Chapter 373 authority basis, (2) the Chapter 24 enforcement basis, and (3) the 62‑340 methodology proof basis.
Key tactic: Do not argue “they’re wrong” in general terms. Argue: (a) missing method, (b) missing foundation, (c) violated procedure, (d) record prejudice. That is how pressure becomes defensible error.

Comparison Chart: 373 vs Chapter 24 vs F.A.C. 62‑340

This chart helps you identify what DERM is relying on — and what you should demand in response. When the agency mixes these layers together, it becomes easier to skip proof.

Authority What it governs What DERM must show Your best pressure points
Florida Statutes Ch. 373 Statewide water resources framework; limits of environmental authority. The specific statutory basis for regulatory action (not just broad statements of power). “Identify the exact statutory authority relied upon.”
“Explain how the action fits within the statute’s limits.”
“Confirm due-process protections still apply.”
Miami‑Dade Code Ch. 24 Local enforcement: notices, citations, hearings, penalties, compliance orders. Proper notice, lawful hearing procedure, and a fair opportunity to prepare and respond. Late evidence = due-process objection + continuance request.
Missing contact/notice = record prejudice.
“State the hearing rule used to admit this exhibit.”
F.A.C. 62‑340 Mandatory wetland delineation methodology (vegetation, soils, hydrology indicators). Underlying field data (dates, locations, indicators), methodology steps, and boundary proof. Demand original data sheets, logs, photo points, transects.
Object to foundation if “wetland” is asserted without 62‑340 proof.
Force location precision and boundary proof — not map summaries.
Shortcut detector: When DERM tries to use Chapter 24 enforcement pressure to substitute for 62‑340 proof, object: enforcement procedure cannot replace a required statewide methodology.

Case-Law Anchors: Why Record + Due Process Wins (Florida Certiorari Standards)

In Florida, certiorari review is not a “second trial.” It is record-based review focused on whether the tribunal followed the law and provided procedural fairness. Florida Supreme Court cases commonly cited for certiorari principles include Combs v. State, Education Development Center, and Haines City v. Heggs.

Practical standard (record-focused): Preserve objections and demonstrate that the process denied a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard, or that the tribunal departed from clearly established law in a way that causes material harm that cannot be fixed later.
What courts look for Procedural Due Process + Correct Law + Record Evidence
What this means for you: your strongest issues are procedural failures reflected in the record: late evidence, denied continuance without fair basis, inability to prepare, refusal to identify methodology, and admission of unsupported conclusions. You must make these points on the record, clearly, at the moment they occur.

When DERM shortcuts methodology (62‑340) or shortcuts procedure (Chapter 24), the strongest response is a clean objection, a continuance request, and a record preservation demand. That is how “pressure” becomes defensible error.

Reminder: Certiorari review is record-driven. If it isn’t stated, offered, or ruled on in the record, it becomes harder to raise later.

At-a-Glance Road Map

STEP 1 Before the Hearing — Build the Due-Process Paper Trail
Goal: Create written proof of unfair procedure (late evidence, missing contacts, non-response to public records requests).
Key concept: If it is not written down, it did not happen.
↓
STEP 2 During the Hearing — Object Early, Preserve the Record
Goal: Put due-process violations on the record before evidence is admitted and testimony begins.
Key concept: Certiorari review looks at the record — not your frustration.
↓
STEP 3 After an Adverse Order — Move to Circuit Court (Certiorari)
Goal: Challenge unfair procedure (due process) and “departure from essential requirements of law.”
Key concept: Certiorari is limited review in which a higher court examines whether the tribunal followed the law and provided due process.
Critical rule: Evidence includes documents, photographs, expert testimony, and witness statements used to support your position. Evidence must be submitted within required deadlines and formally offered into the record before the Hearing Officer to have legal effect.

MINDSET

You are not there to “hope they understand.” You are there to force procedure and force proof. The side that controls the record controls the outcome.

Plain meaning:
Be calm, direct, and relentless about documentation, deadlines, and objections.

THE CORE RULES YOU’LL HEAR ABOUT

Wetland delineation

Wetland delineation is the process of identifying and mapping wetland boundaries on a property under F.A.C. 62-340. If the agency claims “wetland,” demand the underlying field data and methodology — not conclusions.

Water & environmental framework

Florida water management and permitting concepts are often discussed under Florida Statutes Chapter 373.

Hearing procedure

Formal hearing procedures often tie into F.S. § 120.57 and related provisions in Chapter 120.

THE ART OF OBJECTION (PLAY TO WIN)

Object early. Object often. If you do not object, you often lose the ability to complain later.

Examples (tight and record-ready)
  • Missing documentation: “Objection. The agency’s wetland conclusion lacks underlying field data sheets and supporting documentation consistent with F.A.C. 62-340 methodology.”
  • Hearsay / conclusions: “Objection. This testimony is opinion and conclusion without supporting data; it is not reliable evidence.”
  • Unqualified witness: “Objection. The witness has not established qualifications to opine on wetland delineation methodology.”
  • Late disclosure: “Objection on due-process grounds. The agency’s exhibits were not provided with sufficient time to review and respond.”
Purpose:
Force the agency to prove foundation and reliability, not just recite conclusions.

DOUBLE-EDGED QUESTIONS (PUT THEM IN A BOX)

These questions force a choice: produce proof or expose the hole.

  • “Where are the original field data sheets supporting vegetation/soils/hydrology indicators — not summaries — consistent with F.A.C. 62-340?”
  • “What dates were site observations taken, and how did you account for seasonal variation?”
  • “Show the soil profile logs from the site — which specific indicators are you relying on?”
  • “What independent verification exists, if any? If none, what safeguards prevented confirmation bias?”
Tip: ask for “the underlying data” — not the “report.” Reports summarize. Data proves.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (TEAR DOWN THE FOUNDATION)

Questions that create record damage
  • “When was the last full delineation performed before this enforcement action?”
  • “What exact hydrology indicators did you observe, and where is the documentation?”
  • “Did you rule out irrigation/ditch effects that can mimic wetland hydrology?”
  • “Did you consult USDA/NRCS soil resources or request third-party review? If not, why not?”
Goal:
Get admissions that the work was incomplete, biased, outdated, or undocumented.

DUE PROCESS: THE CORE ARGUMENT

If you cannot prepare properly because the agency did not provide evidence in time (or blocked reasonable access), document it and state it on the record. Due process is about a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard.

Common due-process failures to document
  • Late evidence: you receive agency exhibits only on the day of hearing.
  • No contact info: no reliable phone/email for scheduling, continuance, or questions.
  • Unknown assignment: no notice of who the Hearing Officer is until the last moment.
  • Non-response: ignored public-records requests despite stated urgency for pending hearing.
Why it matters: If you cannot meaningfully prepare or respond, the “hearing” becomes a formality, not due process. That is the core of a certiorari due-process argument.

READ-ALOUD SCRIPT (START OF HEARING)

Use this when the Hearing Officer opens the hearing — before evidence is admitted.

1
Opening objection (due process):
“Hearing Officer, before we proceed, I object on due-process grounds. I was required to submit my evidence weeks in advance to the agency, but I did not receive the agency’s evidence with comparable time to review. This denies me a meaningful opportunity to prepare and respond.”
2
Non-contact and continuance:
“I attempted to request an immediate continuance multiple times, but there was no reliable phone or email contact pathway and no assigned Hearing Officer information provided in advance.”
3
Record preservation:
“If this objection is denied, I respectfully request that my due-process objections be preserved on the record for review, including any denial of a continuance and any admission of late evidence disclosure.”
Close: “I request a continuance sufficient to review the agency’s evidence and prepare a response, and I request that all evidence be clearly identified and entered into the record.”

IF YOU LOSE — WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

After an adverse decision, the focus shifts to circuit court certiorari review.

Your certiorari theme
  • Procedural due process was denied (late evidence, no meaningful preparation).
  • Departure from essential requirements of law.
  • Material injury that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal (record-based harm).
Plain meaning:
You are challenging the fairness of the process and asking the circuit court to order a new hearing with proper procedure.
Reminder: Certiorari review is record-driven. If it’s not in the hearing record, it is harder to use later.

THE COST OF LOSING IS HIGH — CONSIDER ETHICAL COUNSEL

The costs of losing a DERM wetland case can be enormous: financial penalties, compliance burdens, land-use restrictions, and long-term property impacts. Consider obtaining advice from an attorney with strong ethics and experience in environmental/administrative law.

Why this matters
  • Complex procedure: deadlines and evidence rules can decide the outcome.
  • Technical issues: wetland disputes mix science and legal standards.
  • Appeal posture: good counsel helps preserve the record for certiorari.
Practical warning: A “win” on paper can be impossible if you missed a procedural step. Good counsel helps you avoid irreversible mistakes.

HELPFUL LINKS

  • Miami-Dade DERM
  • Florida DEP (FDEP)
  • Florida DOAH
  • F.A.C. 62-340
  • Florida Statutes Chapter 373
  • F.S. § 120.57 (Formal Hearing)
  • F.S. § 120.569 (Hearing Rights)
  • Florida Public Records (AG)
  • Florida Courts (Self-Help)

Burden of Proof Clarification

DERM bears the burden of proving:

  • Jurisdiction under Florida Statutes Chapter 373
  • Proper enforcement procedure under Miami‑Dade Chapter 24
  • Strict compliance with F.A.C. 62‑340 methodology
  • Competent, substantial evidence supporting its conclusions
You are not required to disprove a conclusion until DERM establishes a lawful foundation first.

Foundation Objection Checklist (Bring to Hearing)

  • Was this evidence disclosed timely?
  • Is this original field data or a summary?
  • Who created it and when?
  • Does it follow 62‑340 methodology step‑by‑step?
  • Is the boundary tied to specific GPS / transect data?

One‑Page Hearing Day Tactical Sheet

Before Evidence:

  • Object to late disclosure.
  • Ask DERM to state statutory authority.
  • Confirm record is being transcribed.

During Evidence:

  • Demand original 62‑340 field sheets.
  • Tie indicators to specific mapped locations.

After:

  • Restate due‑process objections.
  • Request record preservation.

Core Definitions (Used Once, Consistently)

  • Due Process: Meaningful notice and opportunity to prepare and be heard.
  • Certiorari: Limited review of whether due process was provided, correct law applied, and supported by competent substantial evidence.
  • Foundation: Required evidentiary basis before conclusions are admitted.
  • Competent Substantial Evidence: Reliable evidence a reasonable mind would accept.

Record Language Templates

“For the record, I object…”
“For the record, I request…”
“For the record, I renew my objection…”
“This late disclosure materially prejudices my ability to prepare expert response and cross‑examination.”

Map Shading vs Legal Boundary

A shaded map or GIS layer is not a legally established wetland boundary. A boundary must be supported by 62‑340 compliant field indicators tied to specific locations and dates.

Authority Funnel (Visual Summary)

FLORIDA STATUTES 373
        ↓
MIAMI‑DADE CHAPTER 24
        ↓
F.A.C. 62‑340 METHOD
        ↓
HEARING RECORD
        ↓
CERTIORARI REVIEW

If DERM Refuses to Produce Field Sheets

  • Renew objection to foundation.
  • Move to strike unsupported conclusions.
  • Request adverse inference.
  • Request continuance.
  • Preserve all denials clearly in the record.

SUMMARY

This playbook is about controlling the only thing the system reliably respects: procedure and record. Build a paper trail before the hearing. Object at the start. Force evidence into the record. If the process is unfair, preserve that unfairness on the record. That is how a due-process certiorari argument is built.