Bruce Ritchie
Wasn’t the environment supposed to get more money under Amendment 1 — not less? Is this the old Lottery-style switcharoo?
Those are obvious questions to be asking after the House issued the general revenue allocation on Friday for the 2015-16 state budget.
Agriculture and natural resources spending appeared to be taking a hit — at least compared to last year’s allocation.
Last year the allocation was $467.8 million for the agriculture and natural resources and a portion of general government. This year the allocation is $409 million, or $58.8 million less — even as general revenue overall grew this year by more than $600 million.
But how can that happen considering voter approval of Amendment 1? It’s supposed to provide $757 million in documentary stamp tax revenue for water and land conservation.
Well, the question actually provides part of the answer.
The allocation deals with general revenue. Amendment 1 directs revenue from documentary stamp taxes, not general revenue.
And some money already being spent with documentary stamp tax revenue is being used to pay for activities that probably qualify under Amendment 1.
And there’s a lot that we also don’t know yet.
The allocation is another step in the budget process, not the end deal.
We don’t know how much of that $58 million reduction — if it really becomes a reduction at all — is coming from environmental programs rather than agriculture or other general government categories.
The environment could end up taking an even larger hit, but it’s too early to tell.
“The agriculture and natural resources budget has always been predominantly funded with state and federal trust funds,” said Michael Williams, communications director for House Speaker Steve Crisafulli. “And so inferences regarding the total environmental budget based on the GR (general revenue) allocation should not be made.”
I suspect that a lottery-style switch-aroo will occur, as with education. That’s when lottery revenue wasn’t used to boost spending for schools, rather it simply replaced money already being spent.
Some could argue that it’s happening already with environmental spending. Gov. Rick Scott requested only $100 million for the Florida Forever land-buying program, far less than the $300 million the program received until 2009.
I think the shift of spending to other programs will occur gradually over the next 20 years.
Amendment 1 revenue is forecast to balloon from $757 a year to more than $1.5 billion.
That’s when the temptation to move spending for other government operations and local water projects to Amendment 1 likely will occur.
The switch-aroo may happen. But we just can’t say that it has quite yet, at least not from just looking at the House allocation.
Bruce Ritchie (@bruceritchie) covers environment, energy and growth management in Tallahassee.
