Resolution 136-1995
RESOLUTION NO.
136-1995
c;
0::.
o
.=-.:>
w,_,
ex::
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RECOGNIZING THE
PUl3LIC INTEREST FOR AN ARTIFICIAL REEF
: ',~AR DIXIE SHOAL, KEY LARGO, FLORIDA.
.
\0
I/)
N
s:::
':'. ")-
~
;-~.~.
eX)
~~: CWHE~AS, there is an expressed interest on the part of local Upper Keys
Dive ~erat~ 10 establish an artificial reef in their area; and
o -_.. -
w <: z.
;:: h~1s, the establishment of artificial reefs increase opportunities for
the tourist industries in Monroe County, including dive operators, hoteliers, and
restauranteurs; and
WHEREAS, artificial reefs can be used to reduce environmental stress from
the natural coral reefs in the area by shifting diving and fishing interests toward
these man-made sites; and
WHEREAS, artificial reefs can become significant sites for the
accumulation of fish for recreational fishing; and
WHEREAS, the creation of an artificial reef at this time can be utilized in
on-going research efforts to further establish the cost and benefits to the
establishment of such sites; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that the
County is an appropriate applicant for the artificial reef permit being requested;
and
WHEREAS, the County would undertake the project in accordance with the
Assistant County Attorney's memorandum of 10 March 1995 (attached) to
minimize the County's liability.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
the Board strongly supports the creation of an artificial reef near Dixie
Shoal, Key Largo, Florida.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners,
Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 18th day of
April, A.D., 1995.
Mayor Freeman
Mayor Pro Tern London
Commissioners Douglass
Commissioner Harvey
Commissioner Reich
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
::;]~~~
Mayor/Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
By: ~~ C. ~~
DEPUTY CLERK
BY
(
(
310 Fleming Street
Second Floor
Key West. FL 33040
(305)292-3470
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 10. 1995
FROM:
George Garrett
Marine Resources
Suzanne A. Hutton .
Assistant County Attorney
TO:
RE:
Potential liabilities associated with Artificial Reef Projects
-
~'I ,,~
~.
You have inquired by memorandum dated March 1. 1995. what liability may attach to
the County if it becomes associated with the placement of a vessel or other materials on
a permitted site for the creation of an artificial reef. You have jndicated in your inquiry
that there is a proposal under discussion to create an artiflcial reef near Dixie Shoal. Key
Largo.
Since there has been no set of facts presented for the discussion of potential liability. I
can only address general rules and can form no opinion as to whether the County would
ever be subject to liability.
F"tnt. it should be noted what the potential areas of liability are. For discharge of
hazardous substances into navigable waters. the County could be liable under the
CERCLA law. 42 USC ss. 9601. et seq.. and federal provisions concerning discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters. 33 USC. s. 1321. Florida has statutes concerning
discharging of hazardous substances into navigable waters. In addition to the
responsibility for removal. damages. and fines under the environmental statutes. there is
potential liability for accidents. illness. and disease which the placement wor1<ers. users of
the site. and people eating fish derived from the surrounding waters may claim are due
to an emission or a negligent act by or on behalf of. the County.
It should be noted that under the environmental statutes. both federal and state. there is
no strict liability. That means that the County cannot be held liable for clean up.
damages. or fines. if it can prove that it did not contribute to or cause the problem.
More specifically. the statutes state that you will not be held liable if you can prove that
the release of hazardous substances is due solely to an act of God. an act of war.
negligence of the US Government. an act or omission of any third party. or a
combination of the foregoing, Further. under FS 376. the County is exempt from liability
but its agents and employees might not be as they could be charged for damages
\
(,
, .
-2-
through a claim that they were acting outside of the scope of their employment. Merely
contracting for the work to be done might not relieve the County through the third party
negligence provisions as our contractors are our agents.
The only set of statutes which I know attach strict liability (meaning if you have any
connection through ownership or activity. liability attaches) is the super fund legislation
and that probably would never apply.
Since there is potential for County liability. if the County holds the permit and obligates }
itself thereunder. we should probably conduct the operations of placement and
management rather than let the dive operators take action with our permission. That
way we retain control over the manner of the operations and take precautions to avoid
liability.
If you have any questions. please call.
SAH/jeh
't. "