"Environmental Groups Want Guaranteed $10 Billion Expenditure in State Constitution" in Sunshine State News

By: Michael Peltier News Service of Florida
Posted: August 8, 2012 3:55 AM
Eric Draper
Eric Draper
Future funding for Everglades restoration and other environmental programs would be enshrined in the state Constitution under a ballot initative proposal to guarantee the spending of $10 billion on such programs over the next 20 years.

Frustrated over withering funds for the state's marquee land-buying program, Florida Forever, and sporadic funding for a host of other environmental concerns from drinking water and springs to beaches and historic sites, a coalition of environmental groups on Tuesday launched a volunteer effort to begin gathering signatures to put the issue on the ballot in 2014.

Dubbed the Florida Water and Land Legacy Campaign, the petition drive is being pushed by a coalition of groups that include the Trust for Public Land, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, 1000 Friends of Florida, and Defenders of Wildlife.

"We've been left with no options," said Eric Draper, executive director of Audubon of Florida.

For years, lawmakers set aside about $300 million a year for land-buying, but have rejected that type of spending in the economic downturn of the most recent few years. Since 2009, the state has set aside a total of $23 million for Florida Forever. In 2012, lawmakers earmarked only $8.5 million and prohibited state officials from buying new land.

“When it comes to dedicating funding to protect Florida’s environment, the Great Recession has led to a complete depression," said Manley Fuller, president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, in a statement. "State funding to protect our most precious natural resources has slowed to a trickle.”

The amendment would require that 33 percent of all document tax revenue be earmarked for Everglades restoration and other environmental programs for the next 20 years. The proposal would go into effect July 1, 2015. Collections would be deposited into the state's Land Acquisition Trust Fund, not general revenue.

Before any vote, the group must gather at least 676,811 signatures to put the issue on the ballot. The Florida Supreme Court would also have to approve the ballot title and summary and determine that it satisfies the state's single subject rule, which prohibits citizen petitions from encompassing multiple issues.

The court, however, won't review the ballot language until the coalition has turned in more than 67,811 signatures, a milestone Draper said the group hopes to complete by the end of the year. Once on the ballot, it would have to be approved by at least 60 percent of voters.

Since its inception, Florida Forever and its predecessor, Preservation 2000, have funded the purchase of more than 2.5 million acres of environmentally sensitive lands, according to the Department of Environmental Protection. Since July 2001, Florida Forever has acquired more than 682,000 acres of land at a cost of $2.9 billion.

Environmentalists battle DEP, industries on two fronts

Bruce Ritchie, 05/24/2012 - 05:38 PM

Environmentalists said Thursday they will ask the Florida Supreme Court to require the governor and Cabinet to decide on a plan for a pollution pipeline into the St. Johns River approved by the state.

Also Thursday, the Earthjustice law firm and the Florida Wildlife Federation, which are fighting proposed state pollution rules, said an algae bloom on the Santa Fe River demonstrates the need for tougher federal rules instead of the state rules.

The actions represent separate fights between environmental groups and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection along with industry groups over water quality.

The Clean Water Network of Florida and its allies continue to fight DEP and the pulp and paper industry over its proposals to build pollution pipelines. DEP in 1994 issued an order toGeorgia-Pacific to make water quality improvements and to construct a four-mile pipeline to move the discharge at its Palatka plant from Rice Creek to the St. Johns River. 

A draft petition states that by allowing "mixing zones" for pollution from the pipeline, DEP is allowing for the "private use" of submerged state lands without approval by the Cabinet, which has responsibility in the state Constitution to approve those uses and require compensation. 

Georgia-Pacific spokeswoman Trish Bowles said the company had received a submerged lands lease easement from the governor and Cabinet in 2003 for the pipeline and that a separate mixing zone easement is not required. She said the company has spent $200 million on water quality improvements at the plant since 2002.

A DEP spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing the petition but she pointed out that mixing zones are a part of state water quality standards and are kept to the smallest size possible while maintaining designated waterway uses.

On Thursday, Earthjustice and the Florida Wildlife Federation highlighted Gainesville Suncoverage of the Santa Fe River, where health officials have advised people not to swim, consume fish or drink water near an algae bloom although it hasn't been classified as toxic.

“This is heartbreaking for people and for wildlife,” Florida Wildlife Federation President Manley Fuller said in a news release. “It’s a full-blown crisis like we’ve never seen before on the beautiful Santa Fe River.”

Earthjustice represents the federation and other groups that filed a legal challenge to block proposed state water quality rules, called numeric nutrient criteria. The state rules are proposed to replace federal water quality rules that are being rewritten after a federal judge earlier this year found them to be "arbitrary and capricious."

Industry groups favor the proposed state rules that DEP says are more flexible and will cost less for industries and utilities to comply with while protecting water quality. Environmental groups say the proposed state rules are weak and will result in continued increases in nitrogen that feeds the algae choking springs and other waterways.

Ryan Banfill, a spokesman for a coalition of industry groups, cities and counties that have opposed the federal rules, said it's hard to understand how the environmentalists who are opposing the state rules are complaining about foot-dragging on pollution.

Reporter Bruce Ritchie can be reached at britchie@thefloridacurrent.com.

FL Supreme @FLCourts Sides w/ @FL_Audubon+@SFWMD on Wetlands Mitigation Case #Eco #Everglades @AllEverglades

Florida Supreme Court Sides With Audubon on Wetlands Mitigation Case

Posted on November 4, 2011 by Florida Audubon

The Supreme Court of Florida last Thursday ruled in favor of the position advocated by Audubon of Florida that continues to support state agencies’ ability to negotiate terms of development permits to ensure they protect the environment.

Coy A. Koontz applied for a permit with the St. Johns Water Management District (District) to develop 3.7 acres of his property that was comprised mostly of wetlands. The District offered to grant the permit to Mr. Koontz only if he complied with certain conditions to conserve property and mitigate the loss of wetlands by improving other wetlands off site.

Wetlands by Chad Johnson

Mr. Koontz refused to comply with the District’s conditions and his permit was not granted.  Subsequently, he sued the District, claiming the District had “taken” his property during the time the negotiations continued without a resolution. The Supreme Court reversed a previous decision that ordered the District to pay Mr. Koontz over $300,000.

Audubon filed a brief supporting the District and requiring that the fine be reversed- this reversal was unanimously supported by the Supreme Court Justices (although they reached the same conclusion for a number of different reasons.)

Audubon’s support for the District’s case stemmed from recognizing the importance of allowing water management districts and other state agencies to negotiate terms before issuing a permit without fear that they could face financial repercussions if an agreement is not reached quickly enough.

Audubon applauded the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that gives agencies greater power to require specific protections when wetlands are developed, as they did with Mr. Koontz.  This decision will prevent the agencies from being pressured into issuing permits hastily that could harm Florida’s wetlands and environment.

Audubon’s intervention in this case was facilitated by the late Thom Rumberger, and the firm of Rumberger Kirk and Caldwell, who have done much very important legal work for Audubon. Tallahassee attorney Anna Upton also was instrumental in the preparation of Audubon’s brief before the Supreme Court.