To many in Florida’s environmental community, the hastily called legislative Special Session in Tallahassee on November 16 was a warning shot across the bow. If all the rhetoric from legislators turns into action, the next few years spell trouble for Florida’s environment.
After the Nov 2. elections, the Florida legislature wasted no time in overriding the Governor’s veto of one of the worst environmental bills in years. House Bill 1565, passed last year by the legislature but vetoed by the governor, would bring state rulemaking—environmental and otherwise—to a grinding halt.
HB 1565 requires expensive economic analyses on any state agency rules, and requires any rules with more than a minimal estimated economic impact ($200,000 a year for 5 years) to return to the Legislature for ratification. Adding insult to injury, the bill was offered last year late in the legislative session with almost no public debate. In the days prior to the Special Session, conservationists, business owners and local government leaders urged legislators not to overturn Governor Crist’s veto. Those pleas were ignored.
Several legislators from both parties eloquently objected to the veto in floor debate. In the final vote a very small handful of legislators voted nay but, both houses overwhelmingly voted to override Crist’s veto, making this new law effective immediately.
In a follow up article in the Tallahassee Democrat, both sides offered comments on what this vote means. “This is literally across the board. This would change the way government operates,” said Frank Matthews, a prominent Tallahassee lobbyist for the Association of Florida Community Developers.
Audubon of Florida Executive Director Eric Draper stated, “From the public health and safety standpoint, this is the worst possible thing they could come up with. This may be what they want to do, just shut down government altogether.”
Crist justified his veto last year by saying this would result in a power grab by the legislature of executive authority over state agencies. Florida’s environmental agencies in responding to the bill, reported that almost all agency rules concerning environmental, growth management, water management and related issues will “trip the threshold” requiring approval from the legislature. The veto override was expected by this new legislature. Its anti-government regulation philosophy is closely aligned with the sentiments repeatedly expressed by the new Governor-elect.
I do not know how this will impact beach and turtle protection. But it could potentially impact everything from sea wall permitting to lighting ordinances. It will certainly have a chilling effect on issuing any future environmental regulations. Before DEP can issue a new regulation on anything, lets say beach raking to protect nesting, the agency would have to conduct an economic analysis. If the cost to implement the new regulation is over 200k statewide (remember this is a very large state so almost any rule could cost at least this much to implement) then the regulation would have to go to the legislature for hearings, analysis and approval. This will likely open up agency rule making to extensive special interest lobbying, delaying ratification for years.
The legislature has effectively taken executive branch authority for rule making away from the governor and state agencies and placed it in the hands of what some consider the most conservative legislature since reconstruction.
Gary Appelson
Policy Coordinator
The recent Deepwater Horizon disaster has focused attention on the value and importance of beaches to local economies, the quality of life, and as wildlife habitat. It has also ignited a discussion on whether to permanently ban oil drilling in Florida waters. Florida statutory laws prohibit nearshore drilling (within 10 miles on the Gulf coast and within 3 miles on the Atlantic coast), but state laws can easily be changed. Indeed, the Florida legislature had been working diligently to do away with this statutory ban and only recently abandoned this effort as the Deepwater Horizon continued to gush crude. Consequently, many policy makers and Floridians have been pushing for a more permanent “constitutional ban” that could only be changed by the voters and could not be overturned by the pro-drilling Florida legislature. Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) has steadfastly opposed the legislature’s efforts to allow drilling while also advocating for a more permanent constitutional ban.
In early July, Governor Charlie Crist called for a legislative special session for the purpose of placing a constitutional amendment to ban drilling onto the November ballot. In an effort to gauge public support and hopefully convince legislators to support the governor, STC and four other Florida conservation groups conducted a survey of likely Florida voters. The survey results, released on July 19, just before the Governor’s special session, found that a majority of Floridians now oppose drilling in Florida’s near shore waters and a whopping 71% of Florida voters would like the opportunity to vote on a constitutional ban. A press conference was held in Tallahassee announcing the poll’s results.
The Special Session was called to order on July 20th. It lasted just 29 minutes, with the legislature ignoring the Governor’s efforts by adjourning without any hearings or votes on placing a constitutional ban on the ballot. Several conservation groups are now initiating a statewide citizen petition drive to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot. The STC will be strongly supporting this effort.
In other beach related news, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 17 upholding Florida’s beach restoration program. This very complicated case was initiated in 2004 when some beachfront property owners in the Florida Panhandle sued to stop the state from rebuilding their eroded beaches. When a “critically eroded” Florida beach is rebuilt, the new sand is considered to be public property. Since this new sand is placed between the old high tide line and the water, the beach front property owner’s property no longer touches the water and the new public sand effectively moves the high tide line further seaward. In a very simplified summation: property owners sued claiming the renourishment project resulted in a taking without compensation of their “riparian” rights to have their land touch the water. The case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court in 2007 and eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the state’s beach nourishment program did not constitute a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Had the property owners prevailed, Floridians would have had to pay first for the sand and then also for the right to place sand on a beach to protect the upland development. This could have effectively killed the state’s beach restoration program.
STC is involved in a myriad of issues addressing the long-term protection of Florida’s beaches. Beach management and protection is very complicated and attempts to balance environmental needs, public recreation, tourism, and protection of upland property. It is our mission to ensure the long term protection and health of Florida’s sea turtle nesting beaches and associated nearshore marine habitats.
Sea Turtle Conservancy
