Bruce Ritchie
A trio of former state parks directors are raising concern about state lands bills that would allow “low-impact agriculture” on state lands.
Of even greater concern, thy said, is a push by Florida Department of Environmental Protection leadership to make state parks financially self-sustaining.
HB 7135 would allow the Cabinet to give away state land to adjacent landowners and require park managers to consider allowing “low impact” agriculture on state parks. The bill passed the House 88-24 on April 16 and is waiting to be taken up by the Senate, while the Senate version, SB 7086, failed to be heard in its final committee stop.
Ney C. Landrum, Fran P. Mainella and Mike Bullock, all former state parks system directors, wrote in a Gainesville Sun opinion column on Sunday that even low-impact agriculture can be harmful in state parks.
“This concept of multiple uses of state parks has been proposed before,” they wrote. “But in each previous case, it was rejected as being inappropriate and potentially harmful.
“Conflicting uses have no place in state parks, as they would detract from the experience visitors desire and expect.”
But Rep. Matt Caldwell, a Republican from North Fort Myers who is sponsor of the House bill, said Monday he was perplexed by the column because he said the state park system already allows agricultural uses on thousands of acres.
“The only real change here is we require them to include that in evaluating each one of the land management plans going forward,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they will do it.”
DEP spokeswoman Lauren Engel said Monday the department has not taken a position on the bills. “We have spoken to the bill sponsors for informational purposes,” she said.
In The Gainesville Sun, the former state parks directors pointed to a push by DEP Secretary Jon Steverson, as reported in Floridapolitics.com on March 20, to make parks financially self-sustaining.
State parks, Steverson said, now are about 77 percent “self-sustaining” and his goal is to make park revenue exceed costs.
“I want to maximize value for the taxpayer — but also for the environment,” he said. “And I believe we can reduce that burden for the taxpayer.”
Landrum, Mainella and Bullock wrote that while it may seem appropriate to make parks financially self-supporting, the idea misses the point of why there is a state park system.
“There is no more justification or need to make state parks pay for themselves than to do the same with public roads, schools or health facilities,” they wrote. “The state provides these institutions to provide services for all people, whether the beneficiaries are able to pay or not.”
The most direct route to self-sufficiency would be to increase user fees, the former parks directors said. But that would be a self-defeating move because it could price low-income people out of parks.
“This is one of those times when the people who love the state parks, and for whom the parks are intended, to make their feelings known — quickly and emphatically!” they wrote.
Bruce Ritchie (@bruceritchie) covers environment, energy and growth management in Tallahassee.
