Law

When Florida’s water laws were written in the early 1970s, around the time of the first Earth Day celebrations when public awareness about environmental problems was growing, our laws were heralded as models for the rest of the country. In 1984, the State of Florida named Ichetucknee an Outstanding Florida Water, meaning that pollution was not supposed to increase after that date. Why, then, have conditions in the Ichetucknee degraded?

To know why, it’s essential to understand one key point about our federal and state water laws:  Although the publicly stated intent of those laws is to protect natural systems, the laws actually allow those systems to be harmed through the issuing of permits that enable harm to occur. The emphasis is not on protection but on how much harm we, through our laws, are willing to allow.

This process is demonstrated regularly in the work of water managers throughout Florida, as harmful actions are approved despite overwhelming and well-founded public objections. People who have attended and spoken at agency meetings over the years have watched as this process continues to play out.

Our legal system permits harm because the only value assigned to natural systems is their value as personal property. Property rights, as well as the rights of individuals and businesses to make profits, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Natural living systems have no guaranteed rights to exist and to thrive.

Given the values embedded in this legal structure, the special interests of business, commerce, and private profits invariably win in the courts over the common interest of water security for people and natural systems.

These legal values made sense to the crafters of our Constitution when the United States was a young nation. Over 200 years later, as the natural systems upon which lives and our economy depend are degrading throughout Florida, many people are questioning these values.

Public Policy

State and federal laws are the foundation upon which public policies are based. While governmental agencies usually ask for public comments and stakeholder feedback as policies are being developed, those agencies are free to choose which comments they heed and what feedback they can ignore. Agency decisions depend largely upon the level of political pressure that is being placed upon them and whether the agencies are likely to be sued by the people or businesses that their policies affect.

Politics

Florida has a long history of bipartisan support for preserving our beautiful natural places that attract visitors from all over the world; however, as explained above, our laws are failing the test to provide adequate protections, especially for our waterways. Since people make laws, people can change laws—and that involves working through political channels.

If you don’t understand who makes which laws that affect our natural systems, please watch the Ichetucknee Alliance’s short video, Ichetucknee: Tomorrow, here: https://youtu.be/id0T4_yHV1Q

Florida is a “home rule” state, meaning counties are supposed to be able to govern themselves to a large extent, although lately the legislature has worked to make this more difficult by passing laws that pre-empt counties from doing things such as approving rights of nature laws. In our legal system, state government is considered to be the “parent” of local governments just as the federal government is considered to be the “parent” of the states. Federal laws supersede state laws; state laws supersede local laws.

Whoever is the Governor of Florida wields a lot of power over whether and how Florida’s laws are enforced and whether approved legislation is vetoed or signed into law.

Our elected representatives in the Florida Legislature are the people who actually craft the language of new laws. Voters also have the power to develop laws and to gather signatures to place state constitutional amendments on the ballot, although lately the legislature has worked to make this process more difficult.

Values

From the hawk’s eye view, our laws, public policies, and political system all reflect the values that the majority of us hold. The people we elect as our representatives are the ones who codify those values into law and decide how the laws will be enforced.

Right now, it’s clear that we the people are choosing legislators and others who value the private profits of a few over the natural systems that support life and the drinking water security of the many. What will be the effects on the Ichetucknee if we continue down this path?

You be the judge.

We believe that solutions are possible, however. We believe that the path to successful solutions requires three elements:  (1) accurate water models and solid, unbiased analyses of scientific findings as well as ongoing monitoring of conditions in the river system,  (2) an educated base of public supporters who understand the scientific method and are familiar with the moral and ethical principles that can guide environmental decision making, and (3) the willingness of elected representatives, state agency personnel, stakeholders and public supporters to partner in good faith with others to navigate a complicated maze of relationships in order to find creative and effective solutions.

At their core, the problems we must solve to save the Ichetucknee are not scientific problems—they are people and political problems. Why? Because science is a system that enables us to investigate how the world works; it was never designed as a moral or ethical system to tell us what we should do in any given situation.

When we consider the condition of the Ichetucknee River System from a moral or ethical standpoint, we may begin to get a clearer view of the path forward. For example, consider the following questions:

Should our laws guarantee that natural systems such as the Ichetucknee River have the right to exist, or should such systems be considered property or commodities to be used up?

What, if anything, is our moral duty with regard to preserving natural systems such as the Floridan Aquifer—the source of the river system and our drinking water—for future generations?

Might Florida be better served if our elected officials and environmental advocates had a good understanding of the Precautionary Principle?

What do we want our water legacy to be?