FROM THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA:
Attorneys for the House and Senate this week fired back in a legal battle about whether lawmakers have improperly carried out a 2014 constitutional amendment that seeks to boost conservation efforts.
The dispute centers on the voter-approved Amendment 1, which requires the state to set aside a portion of real-estate documentary stamp tax revenues for land acquisition, restoration and management. Environmental groups last year filed a lawsuit in Leon County circuit court alleging that the Legislature had improperly used a large part of the money for expenses such as salaries and agency operations. The groups filed a motion for summary judgment June 1, prompting House and Senate attorneys to respond in a 46-page document filed Monday. The response focused, in part, on an emphasis by lawmakers on land management.
“While plaintiffs (the environmental groups) might have struck a different balance than that struck by the Legislature — appropriating more money for acquisition and less for the state’s pressing land management needs — the Constitution commits that policy decision to the Legislature,” the response said. “Within constitutional limits, the Legislature alone is responsible for the appropriation of public funds. The Constitution, in turn, authorizes a range of conservation activities, including ‘management,’ which plaintiffs struggle to efface from the Constitution.”
In the June 1 motion for summary judgment, however, the environmental groups argued that the court should order lawmakers to transfer $299 million of state general revenue into the Amendment 1 trust fund because of improper spending.
“Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment because Amendment One prohibits the Legislature from appropriating land acquisition and restoration funds for any other purpose, but the Legislature appropriated most Amendment One moneys to salaries and ordinary expenses of four state agencies,” the motion said. “That the Legislature appropriated funds for those purposes is not in dispute, and as a matter of law those appropriations are unconstitutional.”