Advertisement

Editorial: Don't use Amendment 1 money as slush fund

 
Published Feb. 13, 2015

Floridians' overwhelming vote in November to dedicate a specific amount of money to protect the environment was supposed to herald a new day for the state's precious natural resources. But even with the approval of Amendment 1, which will allocate three-quarters of a billion dollars for that effort next year, Gov. Rick Scott is proposing to spend less on environmental efforts in 2016 than is being spent now. The governor, legislators and environmental advocates should ensure that the clear call by the voters for conservation doesn't end up as a cynical exercise in cost shifting.

Scott's $1.5 billion budget next year for the state's Department of Environmental Protection is $29 million less than in the current budget year. Though it includes significant new money to restore the Everglades and buy sensitive lands, that is a reflection of how Tallahassee has starved environmental spending in recent years — and the widespread interest in using Amendment 1 dollars to plug the environmental funding gap.

The amendment sets aside one-third of the proceeds from the document tax on real estate transactions, and it is expected to generate $757 million for water and land conservation next year. Scott would spend $150 million on restoring the Everglades and South Florida waterways, slightly more than he proposed last year. His $100 million for the Florida Forever land-buying program would restore spending to the level that existed when Scott first took office. His $50 million for springs is actually less than what he requested last year. The proposal puts more money into play and brings — after years of heavy cuts — a degree of stability to conservation funding. But in all, it's an underwhelming plan that doesn't adequately realize the voters' intent.

Lawmakers should set higher priorities. They should increase funding for Florida Forever and springs protection, underscoring the amendment's main mission in preserving endangered water and lands. They should reject the move to use Amendment 1 as a tool to finance every conceivable environmental project; already, the governor's proposal shifts tens of millions of dollars away from the general state budget to the new trust fund. Lawmakers should establish that the Amendment 1 money will serve a statewide purpose, not be a slush fund to pay for bike trails, historic sites and beach renourishment projects that the state already was funding.

Lawmakers also need to use the budgeting process to discuss a host of changes that are needed to put the amendment into full force. The state will always be playing catchup until it cracks down on leaky septic systems, crafts a comprehensive water policy and revives the ability of local governments and the regional water districts to be partners in conservation efforts. The state also needs to acquire more agricultural land in the Everglades basin. None of this is cheap, and a coordinated approach will help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck. But the point of Amendment 1 was to provide a financing tool behind a coherent environmental strategy. It would be a monumental loss to waste it.