Florida voters and the environment finally score a big victory in court over contemptuous legislators, writes Lauren Ritchie.

The good guys won a biggie recently, and that’s rare in this state.

Think back to 2014 when something called Amendment 1 was on the ballot. Some 75 percent of Florida voters gave it hearty approval, which was no surprise. People nearly always say yes when asked if they want to leave an environmental legacy for their children and grandchildren — even if their elected officials don’t care.

This initiative asked voters to dedicate about $750 million annually for 20 years to buy conservation property and restore, improve and manage it using 33 percent of the money collected through documentary-stamp taxes, which are levied on all property sold in Florida.

Voters said, “Go for it!” in a big way.

Then, unscrupulous legislators, led by Lake County’s former state senator and now Supervisor of Elections Alan Hays, hijacked the money to feed bloated state bureaucracy, pay off state debt and keep the corporate welfare flowing. The first year, environmental concerns got about 1 percent of the $750 million annual pot.

How could that even happen? Oh, through the usual means of tricky double talk, obscuring the money trail, repeatedly screaming that the state owns too much land already and assuring voters that legislators know best. Don’t trust your own eyes! That amendment didn’t say what you think it did!

Hays wrote a lame defense of his actions that claimed people didn’t understand the big picture — but whew! — Alan and his happy little subcommittee had it all in hand and saved the day. He listed a variety of conservation programs that the Legislature funded.

“As you can see, there is a whole lot more to being a conservationist than acquiring property,” he wrote, as if talking to a third-grade class.

Here’s one example he didn’t cite: About $13.65 million went to Alico, an agricultural giant, to keep a state contract for something called water farming, called “water farcing” by critics. It involves storing water on big tracts of land to keep pollution out of Lake Okeechobee. Never mind that this can be done on land already owned by the public at a fraction of the cost.

Earthjustice, a group that litigates environmental issues, filed a lawsuit on behalf of several underfunded environmental defenders to fight the legislative theft, and they recently won a victory for plain speaking. A Leon County judge declared June 15 that the people of Florida were perfectly clear about what they wanted, and lawmakers can’t blow off their wishes.

Here’s what the wording on the ballot said:

The money would be used to “acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Ever-

glades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites.”

“It could hardly be clearer,” said Tallahassee attorney David Guest, lawyer for the environmental side.

Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson ruled in favor of the plaintiffs who said that lawmakers “defied” the Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative by improperly diverting much of the money to such expenses as staffing and managing privately owned land. The money, according to the amendment, was supposed to go to the state’s Land Acquisition Trust Fund.

“What the judge said in open court is ‘Words say what they mean and mean what they say and can only be read that way.’ What the Legislature said was ‘There are ways of constructing words to accomplish nothing other than changing bookkeeping,’ ” Guest said.

Part of the strategy of the case involved trying to trace the money that went to various state agencies and departments and determine how it was spent.

“Their answer was ‘No way to tell,’ ” Guest said. Just more cash sucked in by the black hole of bureaucracy.

The only reason the mandate to buy property and preserve water ended up on a statewide ballot at all is that legislators for years ignored demands by voters to preserve property and protect drinking water. Instead, they spent money for whatever their developer and insurance friends wanted.

The result is that while Florida does have considerable preservation property, it still hasn’t found a way to protect its water supply, which hovers near a breaking point, and growth relentlessly continues to threaten drinking-water supplies.

Of course, the underground aquifer from which nearly the entire state drinks does not work like a faucet. It’s not as if Florida will run out of water tomorrow, so it requires education to explain the slow degradation of both the quality and the quantity of water. Simple minds like Hays’ and his colleagues need blackand-white pictures with captions in big letters to get it.

A spokesman for House Speaker Richard Corcoran called the recent ruling a “clear abuse of judicial authority.” What ridiculous hyperbole. It’s no such thing.

What’s “abuse” is the way legislators treat their constituents with contempt. Over and over, people send the message that they want the environment treated with care, and they’re willing to pay to protect drinking water.

Legislators should drop the foolish notion of appealing this ruling — they’ve already spent $229,172.15 — and just get on with doing as they’re told by voters.