Advertisement

Editorial: Everglades money could be bad trade

 
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FL - AUGUST 11:  Rain clouds are seen over the Florida Everglades on August 11, 2011 in the Everglades National Park, Florida. The Obama administration announced it will pump $100 million into Everglades restoration. The money will go to buy land from ranchers as much as 24,000 acres - some 37 square miles - in four counties northwest of Lake Okeechobee and preserve them under permanent conservation easements.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FL - AUGUST 11: Rain clouds are seen over the Florida Everglades on August 11, 2011 in the Everglades National Park, Florida. The Obama administration announced it will pump $100 million into Everglades restoration. The money will go to buy land from ranchers as much as 24,000 acres - some 37 square miles - in four counties northwest of Lake Okeechobee and preserve them under permanent conservation easements. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Published Feb. 8, 2016

Environmentalists have few victories to show from the Florida Legislature in recent years, which is why a measure in the House that provides up to $200 million a year for the Everglades has conservationists downright giddy. But this hardly signals a sea change in environmental policy. State lawmakers still refuse to fully implement Amendment 1, the voter-approved conservation measure, and they continue to shortchange the environmental budget even as the state's natural resources face greater stress. Still, this renewed commitment to the Everglades restoration would be a positive step.

Voters approved Amendment 1 in 2014 as a means to reverse years of environmental neglect by the governor and Legislature. It dedicates a portion of the taxes on real estate transactions to land-buying, conservation and other environmental measures. The bill approved by a House committee would put one-fourth of those proceeds — up to $200 million a year — toward paying for Everglades restoration projects over the next 20 years. It marks a chance for Florida to stabilize its participation in the federal-state project by bringing much-needed dollars to the table, and it offers encouragement that the long-awaited plan will be followed through to its conclusion.

But this breakout proposal for the Everglades hardly looks like a precedent-setter. It comes weeks after the Legislature passed a water bill that delays for years any genuine cleanup of Florida's troubled natural springs. While some environmentalists objected to that proposal, they waited until too late to make a difference and made a calculated move to grab this new pot of money for the Everglades instead.

Tradeoffs are part of politics, but in the larger scheme, Gov. Rick Scott and this Legislature have not shown real concern for the environment. Scott asked for less for the Department of Environmental Protection next year ($1.52 billion) than he did for 2016 ($1.54 billion). The Senate's proposed state budget would continue to reduce the amount of general revenue money going to the environment; those funds are replaced by Amendment 1 money, which was supposed to enhance — not supplant — existing state funding. The House's proposed budget calls for spending Amendment 1 money on salaries, road repair and to buy a plane. And lawmakers have shown no interest in using Amendment 1 to significantly boost even the most popular programs, from land-buying to springs restoration. The full House and Senate are expected to vote on their separate budget plans this week, and the debate over spending Amendment 1 money as voters intended should continue.

Amendment 1 will provide more than $300 million a year for additional spending on the environment — enough to boost the Everglades cleanup and to invest seriously in land-buying, springs restoration and other projects that improve the state's natural environment, tourism and recreation and public health. But lawmakers are squandering much of this money on overhead and other improper uses as they try to distract public attention with big-ticket promises for the Everglades. It's great to invest in the restoration of the River of Grass, but this should not be a bad tradeoff.