EcoAction Alerts

FNPS members understand the threat climate change represents to native plants and native plant communities. Coastal wetlands and aquatic plant communities are imperiled by sea level rise, intensified storms and coastal flooding, and changing temperatures and precipitation patterns are inducing observable impacts to native flora across the state. These impacts will likewise induce a chain of cascading impacts to native wildlife that will only increase over time.

Please take a moment to email or telephone the office of Governor Ron DeSantis and ask him to veto HB 1645 - the regressive Energy Resources bill passed by the Legislature and set to him for his signature.

• The most disturbing aspect of HB 1645 is the fundamental re-framing of Florida’s approach to energy production and management it would implement by deleting all references to climate change and any recognition of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• While the state is poised to abdicate leadership on energy, and no longer wishes to serve as an example of thoughtful energy policy, business and industry increasingly recognize the benefits of embracing renewable energy and new technologies. The state needs to be a leader, not a follower, on intelligent energy policy.

• This bill further erodes home rule authority by preempting the ability of local governments to regulate where natural gas storage and distribution facilities can be developed within their own communities.

• HB 1645 deletes current direction to all state agencies and local governments that procure fleet vehicles under state purchasing plans to consider fuel efficiency when making such purchases. Providing flexibility in procurement decisions is warranted; however, rejecting consideration of fuel efficiency is neither thoughtful energy policy, nor fiscally responsible to taxpayers.

• Development of wind energy in our coastal waters and near-shore areas would be banned entirely. Florida has not developed any wind energy facilities, so this is a solution to a non-existent problem. A cautious approach to future development of wind energy that considers potential for impacts to wildlife, property values and local economies is justified. An outright ban of such promising technology is simplistic and nonsensical. NOT cautious.

There are other problematic provisions in HB 1645. Those detailed above are sufficient to justify a veto. Nothing in this legislation is so time-critical that it demands immediate action. Energy policy is too important to be based on a rush-job. Please tell the Governor to veto this bill and direct the legislature to come back with a more carefully considered attempt at energy policy next year.

You can contact Governor DeSantis via email at GovernorRon.DeSantis@eog.myflorida. com, or by phone at (850)488-7146.

The 2024 Legislative Session concluded on March 8. As is the case after every session, the final results make for a mixed bag of wins and losses. They also provide some direction for goals we want to pursue during the 2025 session. If you want more information about any of the bills we discuss below, you can find the actual text of the bills, the analyses conducted by legislative staff, and the vote tallies by going to https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators and/or https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/bills.aspx . Each webpage includes a window at the top of the page where you can insert a bill number and then click on the “search” or “find” button. Find final summaries at: https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2024/#EN

The Policy Committee appreciates the support FNPS members provided as we fought the bad bills, and expressed support for the good ones. We know the phone calls and emails our members shared with legislators in response to our action alerts made a difference, and extended the reach and influence of our FNPS Lobbyist, Travis Moore.

Wins

It is unfortunate that the most meaningful victories we can claim from the session are the successes we achieved in stopping bad legislation. We must also acknowledge that in most cases, FNPS spoke in unison with other conservation organizations. It’s easier to be heard when we all speak with one voice.

HB/789/SB 738: Environmental Management

• Would have required that anyone who challenges a Department of Environmental Protection or Water Management District permitting decision pay the legal costs of the “prevailing party” upon losing the challenge.

• Existing legal protections against frivolous lawsuits already allow a judge to require the reimbursement of legal fees in such cases.

• The bill was a transparent attempt to prevent public participation in agency regulatory decisions by making it too cost-prohibitive to risk a loss in court.

• Conservation groups were united in their opposition. FNPS submitted a letter to Senator Rodriquez, Chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, and issued an Action Alert.

• The offending “fee shifting” provision was removed, and what remained of the bill eventually died.

The clincher to removing this provision from the bill may have been a letter submitted to FDEP by a coalition of conservation organizations – including FNPS - that warned the so-called “fee shifting” proposed by the bill would violate requirements of the federal Section 404 Clean Water Act Permitting Authority that had been awarded to the state several years ago. Section 404 permitting requires an opportunity for public participation, and “fee shifting” is considered an unacceptable barrier to participation.

FYI, in mid-session, a federal judge invalidated Florida’s Section 404 permitting authority due to failures to adequately protect endangered species through the Clear Water Act permitting process, and restored the authority to the US Army Corps of Engineers. You know Florida has descended into an ugly place when we must count on the ACOE to be a better protector of Florida’s wetlands, and wetland dependent endangered species, than our own state agencies.

SB 664/HB 527: Land and Water Management

Talk about a hodge-podge of wrong-headed ideas. This bill would have:

• Mandated local governments that require the protection of buffers around wetlands to BUY the buffer from the landowner;

• Preempted any local government authority to control dredge and fill activities;

• Ended land management reviews on lands owned by water management districts.

The bill sponsors submitted a similarly horrendous bill last year, and it went nowhere. This one did not win any support and suffered the same well-deserved fate.

SB 1620: Surplus Lands

Surplus sales of conservation lands are, and should be, a difficult and contentious issue in Florida. State agencies can make a case that some of the lands they have purchased for conservation no longer merit protection, and can then sell the lands back into private ownership. The money generated by these sales must go back into the trust fund that finances the purchase of conservation lands to be used for new purchases. SB 1620 would have:

• Allowed FDEP to sell conservation lands in the Florida Wildlife Corridor and retain a conservation easement that would allow the lands to be used for a variety of agricultural uses.

• Money generated by the sale of fee title ownership would go to the Florida Department of Agriculture to fund the purchase of Rural and Family Lands Protection Program (RFL) easements designed to accommodate and perpetuate agricultural usage.

• SB 1620 was a back-door approach to funding RFL by selling off lands already owned by the state

• FNPS submitted a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment and General Government that explained the basis for FNPS opposition, and coordinated a number of last-minute phone calls to members of the committee on the day it was to be heard.

• FNPS Lobbyist Travis Moore put a face to our opposition in conversations with pivotal legislators and staffers, and the bill subsequently died when the committee refused to take it up for formal consideration.

Important context: FNPS is a supporter of the RFL Program because it is an effective complement to – not a replacement of – the Florida Forever Program. We advocated for awarding RFL $300 million in funding this year (more on conservation land funding later). A rigorous, science-based process is used by FDEP to vet the lands acquired through the Florida Forever program. The process ensures we are purchasing the right lands for conservation. SB 1620 would have bypassed any such process. Selling off conservation lands rich in natural resource values to finance the purchase of easements designed to perpetuate agriculture would corrupt both the Florida Forever and RFL land conservation programs.

HB 1641/SB 1126: Regulation of Auxiliary Containers

• Would have prohibited local regulation of auxiliary containers and preempted such authority to the state.

• “Auxiliary Containers” include bags, cups, bottles, cans and other containers made of cloth, plastic, glass, aluminum, polystyrene and cardboard.

• Include containers made for transporting, consuming, or protecting merchandise, food or beverages from public food services or retailers.

• Retroactive, so would preempt any existing regulations.

• State Park and other locally-enacted rules, like those that prohibit taking single use containers (e.g., soda cans, water bottles) on rivers, would have been negated.

FNPS opposed this bill, which was apparently submitted by, and for, the manufacturers of such containers. Most of our partners in conservation also actively opposed it. The next time you kayak or hike in a state park or natural area where such containers are prohibited, take a moment to appreciate the absence of beer cans and soda bottles littering the submerged grassbeds and fringing wetlands. For now, the authority for public and private landowners to adopt such restrictions remains in place.

HB 1075/SB 1772: Soil and Water Conservation Districts

• Would have dissolved 49 of the state’s soil and water conservation districts, and transferred all assets to the Florida Department of Agriculture.

• Would have dissolved the other 9 soil and water conservation districts, and transferred all assets to the counties in which they are located.

• Would replace the elected councils with Governing Boards appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture to oversee a regional collection of similar districts.

• The consolidated entities, under appointed leadership, would be responsible for developing BMP manuals, and advising on water management and BMAPs.

Some soil and water conservation districts are inactive or nonfunctional, so some degree of dissolution and/or consolidation may be justified. This legislation proposed an extreme, one-size-fits-all solution rather than a thoughtful realignment, and would have replaced the local representation and authority the districts provide with top-down Department of Agriculture control. Another example of legislative preemption of home rule authority.

CS/CS/HB 165: Sampling of Beach Waters and Public Bathing Spaces

• Enhances provisions related to bacteriological sampling of beach waters and public bathing places.

• Includes provisions for rule adoption and enforcement,

• Addresses the issuance of health advisories and closure of beaches and public swimming areas.

• Addresses notification and signage requirements.

FNPS Lobbyist Travis Moore played an active role in supporting this legislation, and its passage was a good thing for anyone who likes to visit our beaches and other surface water shorelines for swimming, fishing, or other recreating. It may help increase the attention required to rein in water pollution, which would benefit Florida’s aquatic and wetland plant communities. And inclusion of this bill in our report allows one of the “wins” we have listed to include an actual good bill that passed, as opposed to a bad bill that we helped stop.

Losses

HB 1581/SB 32: Mangrove Replanting and Restoration

FNPS was enthusiastically supportive of this bill, which would have required FDEP to adopt rules for mangrove replanting and restoration, including in:

• • Areas of Critical State Concern (e.g., Florida Keys and Indian River Lagoon).

  • Barrier islands and spoil islands.

  • Biscayne Bay as part of revitalization efforts.

  • An analysis to assess the potential for mangrove replanting to reduce homeowner’s insurance premiums was also an element of the bill.

Mangroves are effective at reducing coastal erosion and increasing the resilience of coastal ecosystems to sea level rise and storm-induced impacts. This bill would have complemented ongoing resiliency projects by promoting the “living shoreline” protection afforded by mangroves. Although the bill did not pass, we believe the support FNPS expressed helped set the stage for it to be considered again in 2025, and to be passed into law. That result would turn this loss into a win next year.

HB 1079/SB 298: Local Government Coastal Protections

This bill would have:

• Allowed coastal counties to use Resilient Florida Grant funds to conduct saltwater intrusion vulnerability assessments.

• Required DEP to update the statewide flood vulnerability and sea level rise data, and make all data and info available to the public.

• Preempted the authority of local governments to regulate certain development seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.

This is another bill that we liked – except for the provision to preempt local government authority to control coastal development. The title of the bill was based on the offending provision. We supported the elements that would have promoted saltwater intrusion vulnerability studies because saltwater intrusion threatens not only our public water supply, but also brackish and freshwater wetlands along the coast and other native plant communities that are intolerant of salt. Demonstrating the vulnerability of our water sources to salt water intrusion would also have helped demonstrate the need for Florida to become proactive in addressing the causes of sea level rise – the greenhouse gas emissions that are at the root of climate change! FNPS issued an Action Alert expressing support for the elements we liked, while lobbying legislators to remove the “poison pill” provision. By the end of the session, we had succeeded in our efforts to remove the coastal development provisions; however, it was too late for final action to be scheduled, so the bill died. This is another bill that we believe is poised to be reintroduced, and passed, next year. In other words, this is another loss that may presage a win next year.

HB 1187/SB 1258: Carbon Sequestration

Florida has done very little to mitigate the impacts of climate change by addressing the CO2 emissions that serve as the main driver. This bill would have represented a small, positive step by exploring the potential for our agricultural industry to sequester CO2: It would have:

• Created a Carbon Sequestration Task Force in FDEP and required reports to the FDEP Secretary, Governor and Cabinet.

• Identified and inventoried agricultural lands capable of sequestering carbon.

• Considered methods to increase the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural and silvicultural lands.

• Identified funding mechanisms to encourage sequestration practices.

We are hopeful this bill, or something similar, will be submitted for consideration next year.

CS/CS/HB 1645: Energy Resources

Another bill universally reviled by our brothers and sisters in conservation, this bill passed easily through both the House and Senate, largely on “party line” votes. It has been sent to the Governor, and FNPS has submitted a letter asking Governor DeSantis to veto it. Among many other things, this bill would:

• Enshrine into statute a fundamental re-framing of Florida’s approach to energy production and management by deleting references to climate change and any recognition of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Delete current direction to state agencies, universities, colleges and local governments to consider fuel efficiency when procuring fleet vehicles under state purchasing plans.

• Ban any future development of wind energy in Florida’s coastal waters or within 1 mile of any coastline.

• Preempt local government authority to regulate the placement of liquified natural gas storge and distribution facilities (i.e., “resiliency facilities”) or promote inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations in future development.

This bill is another major power grab by the Legislature to preempt the home rule authority of county and municipal government, and to remove any recognition of the reality of climate change from the Florida Statutes. Even though there has been no meaningful development of wind energy in Florida, this bill would unilaterally bar if from ever being considered in Florida’s offshore state waters or within 1 mile of the coast. And when state agencies spend your tax dollars on new fleets of vehicles, they won’t be asked to give any thought to fuel efficiency. Huh? That is a small taste of a truly horrible bill that deserves an emphatic veto.

CS/HB 87: Taking of Bears, aka “Self Defense Act”

If you or a loved one are ever threatened by a black bear in Florida, current law allows use of lethal force to protect yourself. This bill would exempt individuals from any kind of penalty for using lethal force against a bear when under imminent threat of death, injury to persons or pets, or substantial damage to property, provided the bear was not intentionally lured with food. In other words, this is a bill in search of a problem. Motivated by a prevalence of nuisance bears in Franklin County, the actual problem is mismanagement of residential solid waste across most of the County. A more effective solution would be to simply ensure homeowners in Franklin use bear proof containers for their refuse. Coincidentally, the budget includes a line item that would award $683,500 to Franklin County to address this problem. FNPS is asking the Governor to veto this unnecessary bill, and to leave the funding for Franklin County in the budget.

Some Budget Items of Interest to FNPS

Florida Forever Program	$100 million
Rural and Family Lands Protection Program	$100 million
Florida Communities Trust	$15 million
Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program	$14.2 million
Florida Endangered Species Grants	$217,000
U of F Assessment of Ocklawaha restoration	$500,000
Franklin County Bear Resistant Refuse Residential Containers	$683,500
Resiliency Grants (Planning & Flooding/Sea Level Rise Projects)	$145 million

FNPS advocated for “full” funding of both the Florida Forever and Rural and Family Lands Protection programs. We submitted a letter to the members of legislative leadership, and issued two action alerts, in support of the funding. We consider full funding to be $300 million annually for each, based on the traditional amount allocated to Florida Forever every year from 1990 through 2008. The table above summarizes the amounts approved in the final budget. Note that one of the bills we celebrated from last year requires a minimum allocation of $100 million per year to Florida Forever – exactly the amount requested by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. So the approved funding can be described as legal, but not exactly generous or reflective of a sincere support for land conservation..

FNPS believes Florida must act with greater urgency to protect the most important remaining natural areas, particularly those parcels that are essential for maintaining functional connectivity within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. We believe Florida can afford to invest in conservation at a much higher level. More than $1 billion is deposited annually into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund from the excise taxes collected on sales of real estate. We believe, and will advocate for, additional staffing in FDEP’s Division of State Lands to ensure that staffing levels are sufficient to successfully complete approved Florida Forever land conservation projects in a timely fashion while still complying with the intensive vetting process and accountability measures required by statute. We will also advocate for more funding for endangered plant research grants.

March 29, 2024

Governor Ron DeSantis
The Florida Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

SUBJECT: Please Veto CS/HB 87 & Approve Bear Proof Refuse Container Funding

Dear Governor DeSantis:

Current Florida law allows anyone who feels threatened by a black bear to use lethal force to defend themselves. To our knowledge, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has never prosecuted anyone for killing a bear in self-defense. Most bear-human conflicts can be traced to individual bears that have learned to associate people with easy access to food. Whether the food source is residential refuse, backyard bird feeders or a beekeeper’s apiaries, the problem of nuisance bears can be effectively curtailed by simply denying them access to an easy meal.

HB 87 is a hasty and ill-conceived response to an apparent rash of bear-human conflicts in rural Franklin County, where the local government exercises very little control over the management of residential waste. In other regions of the state that have healthy bear populations, common sense adjustments to waste management practices, combined with public education campaigns, have proven to be successful in reducing conflicts with bears. The budget sent to you by the legislature includes funding that would allow Franklin County to administer a program to distribute bear proof refuse containers to their residents.

Please do not punish Florida’s black bears for our own mismanagement of household garbage. Veto CS/HB 87 and approve the funding that will allow Franklin County to implement an actual solution to their problem with nuisance bears. Thank you for considering our concerns.

Sincerely,

Mark Kateli, President
Florida Native Plant Society

cc: Representative Jason Shoaf

March 18, 2024

Governor Ron DeSantis
The Florida Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

SUBJECT: Please Veto Regressive Energy Resources Legislation CS/CS/HB 1645

Dear Governor DeSantis:

The Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS) recognizes the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach to meet Florida’s long-term energy needs. Unfortunately, the Legislature has proposed substantial modifications to our energy policy through HB 1645 that are alarmingly regressive. We ask that you veto HB 1645 and direct the Legislature to go back to the drawing board. While some adjustments to current policy may be justified in response to changing circumstances and technologies, none of the provisions contained in HB 1645 address urgently pressing needs, and a rethinking of HB 1645 would be more prudent than approval and implementation as currently proposed.

The FNPS mission to conserve Florida’s native plants and native plant communities requires that we adopt an expansive view of the threats they face. Coastal wetlands and aquatic plant communities are imperiled by sea level rise and intensified storms and coastal flooding, and the changing temperatures and precipitation patterns associated with climate change are imposing stresses that have induced observable impacts to native flora across the state. These impacts to plants are likewise inducing a chain of cascading impacts to native wildlife, including especially pollinators, that will only increase over time.

The most disturbing aspect of HB 1645 may be the fundamental re-framing of Florida’s approach to energy production and management portended by deleting references to climate change and any recognition of the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Legislative intent of our energy policy (see 377.601) would be reduced to ensuring “… an adequate, reliable, and cost-effective supply of energy for the state in a manner that promotes the health and welfare of the public and economic growth”. Extracting any consideration of the causes and consequences of climate change will make them no less real, and it is difficult to understand how “the health and welfare of the public and economic growth” can be effectively
accounted for by denying the realities of climate change and its myriad impacts on the environment, economy, and quality of life shared by all Floridians.

HB 1645’s abdication of thoughtful leadership on energy policy could not be reflected any more clearly than in the deletion (see 286.29) of “…The Legislature recognizes the importance of leadership by state government in the area of energy efficiency and in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of state government operations.”

While the state is poised to abdicate leadership and no longer wishes to serve as an example of thoughtful energy policy, business and industry increasingly recognize the benefits of embracing renewable energy and new technologies. What business would decline to consider fuel efficiency when adding new vehicles to their inventory? HB 1645 deletes current direction to state agencies, universities, colleges and local governments to consider fuel efficiency when procuring fleet vehicles under state purchasing plans. Providing greater flexibility in the state’s vehicle procurement decisions may be warranted; however, rejecting consideration of fuel efficiency when purchasing vehicles is neither thoughtful energy policy, nor fiscally responsible.

A cursory review of the state budget forwarded for your approval reveals the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services would receive more than $1.9 million for motor vehicle purchases. The total allocated for vehicle purchases across the entire budget is MUCH greater. It is not our intention to question the motor vehicle needs of FDACS, or any other such allocation in the proposed budget. We only wish to highlight the scale of the cost savings, and the magnitude of potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over time, that could be achieved by a veto of HB 1645 based solely on rejection of this provision of the bill.

One of the signature achievements of your governorship has been adoption of an ambitious approach to promoting coastal resiliency through creation of the Office of Resilience and Coastal Flooding, and the Resilient Florida Grant Program. Resiliency to coastal flooding and sea level rise is critically important in Florida. HB 1645 would not only preempt local government authority to decide where natural gas facilities should be sited within their own communities – it perverts the very meaning of resiliency by defining natural gas storage and distribution facilities as “resiliency facilities”. This section of HB 1645 is especially incoherent. What is the legislature’s intent, beyond imposing additional limits on home rule authority?

There are other problematic provisions in HB 1645. We believe those we have detailed above are sufficient to justify a veto, and again contend that nothing in this legislation is so time-critical that it demands immediate action. Energy policy is too important to be based on a rush-job, and the widespread public opposition to this bill expressed during committee hearings underscored its many shortcomings. Please direct the Legislature to come back with a better bill next year.

Thank you for considering our concerns, and for your efforts to protect Florida’s natural resources and economy while also ensuring a secure energy future for its citizens.

Sincerely,
Mark Kateli, President
Florida Native Plant Society
cc: Shawn Hamilton, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Mike La Rosa, Chair of the Florida Public Service Commission