Toll-road plans fall short on wildlife protection, urban sprawl

With so much attention on this year’s election, another consequential date for Florida’s future has been overshadowed. Sunday, Nov. 15, is the deadline for the final task force reports created under the 2019 state lawthat authorized the Multi-use Corridor of Regional Economic Significance toll roads in three corridors stretching more than 300 miles through mostly rural western Florida.

With representatives on each of the three task forces, my organization— 1000 Friends of Florida— played a role in writing those final reports, which provide recommendations to the Florida Department of Transportation for carrying out the M-CORES program. The reports reflect thoughtful input from diligent task force members. They declare that the task forces didn’t find a need for new roads. They recommend that FDOT consider improving or upgrading existing roads first.

Nevertheless, the final recommendations fall short of the mandate in the 2019 lawto protect the environment and revitalize rural communities. They don’t do enough to stop the toll roads, if they are built, from fueling low-density residential development— urban sprawl— thatwould ruin this unspoiled part of Florida. For that reason, 1000 Friends did not support the reports.

Our organization was founded in 1986 to promote sustainable development, prevent sprawl, and protect Florida’s environment. Recognizing that a network of new toll roads through some of the last, best natural lands in Florida is a dagger aimed at each of those goals, we fought against the 2019 lawthat authorized M-CORES.

But after the law passed, we accepted appointments to the task forces. We did it with hopes of using these positions to minimize potential harm to unique rural communities. We did it to try to protect critical environmental resources throughout the corridors, including rivers, springs, habitat for panthers and other wildlife and the Floridan Aquifer, the drinkingwater supply for millions of Floridians.

The 2019 law empowered the task forces to “evaluate the need for, and the economic and environmental impacts” of each of the corridors. When it became clear that the task forces would not be delivering a verdict on either the transportation need or the financial feasibility of the M-CORES toll roads, we successfully pushed for at least a preliminary determination of both from FDOT before itwould advance to the next planning stage in the project. This provision provides ameasure of protection for taxpayers on a project with an overall price tag that could top $24 billion.

We also pushed for a provision in the task force reports thatwould require acquisition or other protection of conservation land within 10 miles of each planned toll road interchange before construction begins. We believe this provision was necessary tomeet the law’s obligation to “protect the environment and natural resources” by preventing the loss of sensitive land and impairment of vulnerable waters where they would be most at risk near interchanges, which would otherwise be magnets for development.

For the same reason, we sought a provision thatwould meet the mandate in the lawto “revitalize rural communities” by protecting their character, agricultural lands and existing businesses fromthe negative impacts of nearby interchanges. The provision would have barred construction of any interchanges until all land within 5 miles not designated for development is protected from it.

Neither of these provisions was adopted in the task force reports. We were told they would violate home rule for the local governments involved. But the resources at risk—including water ways, wildlife habitat and wetlands— are of regional and statewide significance, and the project threatening them is state-funded. The state bears the responsibility to protect those resources.

In lieu of our provisions, the task force reports outline an “interchange management process” where FDOT is urged toworkwith local governments to prioritize protecting environmental resources. Good intentions, but no guarantees. More than just road builders understand where good intentions can lead.

The absence of stronger provisions in the task force reports to guard against sprawl leaves the unmistakable impression that one of the purposes of MCORES is to spur new residential development in rural areas. That purpose is nowhere to be found in the 2019 law.

Nowthat the task reports are complete, we urge Florida legislators to revisit the law. They can start by filling the gap left in protecting natural resources and revitalizing rural communities.