Advertisement

Maxwell: Florida needs new amendment to protect environment (w/video)

 
Florida needs a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to clean air, safe drinking water and a healthy environment.
Florida needs a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to clean air, safe drinking water and a healthy environment.
Published May 2, 2015

Enough is enough.

In its familiar dissembling way, the Republican-led Florida Legislature is contravening the official will of the people.

Last November, a supermajority of voters approved Amendment 1. It was supposed to strengthen Florida Forever, substantially protect natural habitats and enable the purchase of vital land statewide. Most notably, Amendment 1 money would position the state to purchase 46,000 acres owned by U.S. Sugar Corp. that would be used to help restore the Everglades. The option to buy the land expires in October.

Republican conservatives and cowed Democrats in Tallahassee have no intention of using a fair share of the millions of dollars from the amendment's documentary stamp tax proceeds to buy land. They intend to spend a lot of it on wastewater projects and to clean up agriculture's pollution.

The Legislature's dismissal of Amendment 1 is yet another example of the voters' powerlessness and the need for drastic action. Citizens who understand the value of the natural environment must take back the state from the sycophants in Tallahassee who put wrongheaded ideology, campaign contributions and incumbency ahead of the state's greater good.

We must use our only viable weapon: another constitutional amendment.

I acknowledge that the Legislature has effectively ignored previous environment-related amendments, one of the most far-reaching being the 1996 "Polluter Pays" amendment. With nearly 70 percent voter approval, the amendment called for Big Sugar to pay its fair share of the then-estimated $2 billion to clean up water in the Everglades.

But with bought-and-paid-for members of the House and Senate, armies of lobbyists and lawyers and shills in the water management agencies, Big Sugar has yet to pay its fair share for cleanup. Taxpayers continue to be cheated.

So, what would we gain from yet another amendment?

I am not a lawyer, but I wager that an amendment with incontrovertible language that gives Floridians a constitutional right to clean air, safe drinking water and a healthy environment would be a game-changer.

This is not a new concept. In her 1962 book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson argued that Americans have an inalienable right to a healthy environment. After all, a healthy environment is an apex human right.

Now consider the concept of the constitutional right to a healthy environment more broadly. In his book The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment, David R. Boyd, an internationally acclaimed environmental lawyer, writes that as of 2012, 177 of 193 United Nations member nations recognized the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions. The United States was not one of them. With all of our purported wisdom and sense of justice, we are in the company of China, Afghanistan and North Korea.

Boyd shows that in nations that have adopted environmental amendments, the outcomes have been remarkable, including stronger environmental laws, better enforcement of those laws, landmark court decisions, the cleanup of pollution hot spots and the provision of safe drinking water.

Spend your days with Hayes

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

But merely stating in a constitution that a healthy environment is a human right is not enough. Countries with the most effective environmental rights in their constitutions crafted precise language describing shared responsibilities between the public and the government and gave courts the power of judicial review.

This movement is described by Erin Daly, a professor of environmental and constitutional law and the associate dean of faculty research at Widener University Law School.

"In many instances," she writes, "environmental rights are recognized not as substantive entitlements (which would allow litigants to sue if the government polluted their rivers or clear-cut their forests), but as procedural rights. Examples of procedural rights include imposing on governments the obligation to consult with communities before they take actions that will affect their environment or giving individuals the right to participate in governmental processes that will affect their environment. While procedural rights do not guarantee a particular outcome, they may be more effective in preventing environmental degradation."

The time has come for Florida voters to fight for a constitutional amendment that outlines clear procedural rights to a healthy environment. One result should be the option of eminent domain. Floridians should have the right, for example, to take Big Sugar land at a fair price to restore the Everglades.

Big Sugar's polluting practices must end. The industry should be forced to pay up with cash or land or both.