Text of Amendment 1 can cause mischief

We have high regard, if not high hopes, for a lawsuit filed Monday by environmental groups who claim the Legislature did not comply with Amendment 1.

Questions about exactly what the amendment requires have swirled since its overwhelming approval in November was followed by early indications that the Legislature intended to use the roughly $740 million generated for many purposes other than land acquisition. It is clear that voters intended the amendment to give a significant boost to land acquisition. After all, its ballot title was: “Water and Land Conservation — Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands.”

But the title is not the text. And the text added to the Florida Constitution opens avenues for legislative mischief. The text says money the amendment channels into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund “only” may be expended for certain purposes, but the list that follows that “only” is long and vague enough in parts to potentially allow uses most voters never precisely contemplated.

The money is to be used to finance or refinance such things as “the acquisition and improvement of land, water areas, and related property interests, including conservation easements, and resources for conservation lands, including wetlands, forests, and fish and wildlife habitat.” That’s just the start. It goes on from there to cover such things as improvements to beaches and recreational areas and protecting drinking water and the Everglades.

The entire section unquestionably emphasizes land acquisition. But when the language extols “the restoration of natural systems” and “the enhancement of public access,” the goals become so broad that questionable projects could be sneaked in.

Such elastic language would not be a problem if the Legislature were dedicated to carrying out the will of the 75 percent of voters who approved the amendment. But that’s not this Legislature. Land acquisition never was high on its agenda — and in particular it objected to buying thousands of acres from U.S. Sugar in a deal that originated under former Gov. Charlie Crist and was envisioned as a way to save the Everglades.

We have high regard for the lawsuit because judicial review of the amendment’s meaning and purpose are necessary to clarify what the amendment requires and to referee whether the Legislature has used Amendment 1 funds to offset expenditures — many for pet local projects — that should have come out of the general fund. The amendment expressly prohibits that practice.

While Senate President Andy Gardiner and House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, who are defendants in the suit, insisted that the budget complies with the state constitution, the groups that filed the lawsuit — The Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns Riverkeeper and The Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida — said the budget spends about $300 million inappropriately. Only $88.7 million, or 12 percent, of the total went to actual land acquisition, the lawsuit calculates.

We do not have high hopes for the lawsuit because the Legislature traditionally has wide discretion in interpreting and implementing amendments. Lawmakers and regulatory bodies take broad, pithy language and turn it into statutes, budgets and regulations.

And if the Legislature does not wholeheartedly agree with an amendment, the voters’ wishes can be thwarted or, at least, blunted. That certainly happened with the 2002 Class Size Amendment. Jeb Bush opposed it, and he and the Legislature kept the state from providing adequate capital dollars to fulfill it.

In 1998 Florida voters approved an amendment that declared education “a paramount duty of the state,” and years of legal wrangling have not fully explained what that requires — or prohibits — the Legislature to provide in terms of funding and voucher programs.

A lawsuit is not the preferred remedy when the Legislature thwarts a constitutional amendment. Replacing legislators is — a process made more difficult, ironically, by a Legislature that has dragged its feet on fair districting amendments that Florida voters approved in 2010. But judicial review is welcomed whenever, as in the case of Amendment 1, lawmakers hold the state’s voters in such low regard.