Associated Press
After years of deep cuts to environmental programs, Florida voters last November overwhelmingly approved Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution to earmark billions for conservation. But the measure left it up to the Legislature and governor to determine the details of how the money will be spent, and that has led to a heated debate.
Gov. Rick Scott is proposing that the Legislature during its upcoming session allocate $150 million for Everglades projects, $50 million for springs restoration and another $150 million or more for conservation land acquisition and management in other parts of the state. Another $177 million would pay off debt obligations from previous conservation work. The Legislature convenes March 3.
What has raised the ire of conservationists is the other portion of Scott’s 2015-2016 Amendment 1 budget. A breakdown of this section by the governor’s office shows that he is proposing about $63 million for the operations of state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the five water districts and state parks department. Scott’s budget also wants $7.6 million to pay for state park patrol, in addition to $17.5 million of amendment funds for a wastewater treatment project in the Florida Keys.
Environmentalists say voters approved Amendment 1 so the state would buy land and fund water protection projects with the money, not fund state agencies and sewer upgrades that can be paid for by other means.
“We don’t believe Amendment 1 funds should be used to fix leaky sewer pipes,” said Will Abberger of the Trust for Public Land, a key sponsor of the initiative. “There’s lots of other sources to fund those wastewater needs, lots of federal funding.”
Amendment 1 passed in November with 75 percent support. It earmarks 33 percent – or about $18 billion to $20 billion over the next 20 years – from a real estate stamp tax to help the state purchase lands for conservation and water quality. It was the largest such measure ever approved in U.S. history.
The effect is already being seen in the 2015-16 state budget, with a projected $750 million to $775 million in Amendment 1 money.
Scott’s office would not comment directly on concerns about other items in his proposed budget. Spokeswoman Jackie Schutz said the governor is also proposing $80 million in environmental spending above the requirements of Amendment 1 for water quality projects throughout the state, including those that provide economic opportunities in “financially disadvantaged communities.” The specific projects have not been identified, she said, but there are numerous requests from throughout the state.
Conservative lawmakers who opposed Amendment 1 argued that it would tie up funds that the Legislature might need to use for more pressing needs in tough economic times.
But with the amendment’s passing, those lawmakers now say it is important that the Legislature be creative in allocating the money.
“I’ve encouraged (the Legislature) to think outside the box on Amendment 1,” said state Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando. “Don’t just say, `Hey let’s just take 33 percent and dump it into the land acquisition trust fund and move on.’ Use it as an opportunity to reshape how we do environment.”
Amendment 1 supporters rallied recently on the steps of the old state Capitol building in Tallahassee, with hundreds waving signs that said “Conservation land, not slush fund” in protest of some of the governor’s proposals.
House Democratic Leader Mark Pafford said he does not think voters approved Amendment 1 to supplant agency operations budgets, but instead were sending a message that conservation programs cut in recent years need to be refunded.
One of those programs, the state’s conservation land purchasing program called Florida Forever, once saw more than $300 million in revenue per year, but has seen that dwindle by 97 percent since 2009. Amendment 1 supporters say it is important to fully restore the program as the state continues its population boom.
Whatever the Legislature decides in March, the new constitutional amendment still will send tens of millions of dollars to Florida Forever and Everglades restoration.
It has also started a conversation that’s been absent in recent years.
“It’s forced a great debate over the proper use of funding for conservation that’s not happened since I’ve been here,” Pafford said. “The debate from year to year has been `We have no money for these programs and can’t fund anything.’ It’s a good first step.”
Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
