These groups and agencies met at Wakulla Springs to coordinate their positions. Later meetings were held with representatives of the business community. By the time the 1998 legislative session commenced, there was considerable sentiment for the Legislature to create a new program in 1998, before the year 2000 expiration date of the existing land acquisition program.

     In this vein, shortly before the commencement of the 1998 legislative session, Jeb Bush issued a paper unveiling his proposal for a new "Florida Forever" environmental lands purchase program. He proposed a $3 billion dollar purchase program commencing in 2001 and running through 2011. As the legislative session progressed, the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate grappled with the option of either extending the P-2000 Program or creating a new land buying program. Eventually the House proposed a very ambitious program of bonded indebtedness to generate $4 billion over the next 20 years for purchase of lands and $2 billion in bonded indebtedness for junior college and higher education facilities (i.e. Florida 2020). The Senate's response was a much more modest program which would have merely extended the P-2000 Program by authorizing the floating of bonds of approximately $300 million per year through the year 2010 (i.e. Forever Florida) and containing no educational funding mechanisms. The differences between the proposals of the House and Senate, their respective attitudes about the fiscal wisdom of long term bonded indebtedness eventually caused the demise of both proposals.

     Late in the legislative session, all sides were working on bills which would extend the P-2000 program (HB 4551/SB 2024). The environmental community, state agencies, and the business community focused mostly on the details, leaving the legislators to work out differences over the subjects and size of the indebtedness and the length of the program.

     The issues which were considered by the various groups and interested legislators included:

• What lands have previously been purchased and how are they being managed?

• How much additional land should the state acquire?

• What character of lands are needed in the future (e.g.conservation, parks, urban recreation and/or water supply lands)?

• Whether lands being purchased under the new program would be available for multiple uses, regardless of the character or environmental values of the lands being purchased?

• Whether previously acquired lands would be available for multiple uses?

• Do multiple uses include the use of conservation lands purchased under the endangered lands programs for water supply? Agricultural activities? Recreation?

• Would water supply uses be allowed only on lands purchased by the Water Management District bs or would lands purchased by the Department of Community Affairs through its Communities Trust, and by other state agencies, be made available for water supply?

• Would bond proceeds be available for the capital cost of building reservoirs, wellfields or aquifer recharge and recovery facilities on acquired lands?

     Representatives of various environmental interests and some members of the business community struggled to agree on language that was mutually acceptable on the issue of multiple use. Eventually, language agreed to by the Audubon Society and business representatives was incorporated into CS/HB 4551, as follows:

"Multiple use of the lands being acquired by the state pursuant to Florida 2020 and future purchases, may be allowed where compatible with the resource values of and the management objectives for such lands. As used in this legislation, multiple use includes public recreation, water supply, water resource development projects, and sustainable forestry management, where appropriate. As discussed herein, permittable water resource development and water supply development projects may be allowed only under the following conditions: the minimum flows and levels have been established for those waters potentially affected by the project; the project complies with all conditions for the issuance of permits under Part II of Chapter 373; and the project is consistent with the regional water supply plans of the water management districts."

      A version of the above language was eventually included in the CS/SB 2024. Nevertheless, the Senate version of the minimum flows and levels language was not acceptable to the environmentalists. The Senate Bill also authorized the expenditure of bond proceeds to fund construction of reservoirs and aquifer recharge and recovery facilities, but not for the construction of wells and pipeline facilities.

     Other significant issues involved in the debate, included:

• What portion of the bond proceeds should be used for the management of state lands? Various legislators expressed frustration with the fact that although we have been purchasing lands under various environmental purchase programs for over 15 years, the management and management plans for acquired lands is still not in place or effective;

• The tax millage which would trigger payments in lieu of taxes to small counties (8.0 mills vs. 8.25 mills); and

• What size counties should be eligible for payments in lieu of taxes, and whether school boards would be eligible for payment in lieu of taxes? The payment in lieu of taxes issue was driven by the fear of some small counties that a large portion of their tax base would ultimately be lost through purchases of lands by the state under the new program.

 

      Both legislative chambers were so concerned about the details of the P-2000 program's operation and where they were going with the new program that they immediately bought into the creation of an independent study commission which could make recommendations to the 1999 Legislature on how the new program should be structured. The Commission was to study:

• Appropriate modifications and funding levels including the relative priority of each funding category, i.e., which agency should get what amount of money to buy which kinds of lands;

• The process by which restoration, acquisition and capital improvement projects are competitively selected;

• How the acquisition lists are developed;

• Appropriate changes in the legislative policies for managing conservation lands, including, but not limited to:

1) Multiple uses of such lands;

2) Use for water supply purposes;

3) Use of state funds for management to assist local governments in managing the purhased lands;

4) Use of state funds for management for exotic plant control; and

5) The level of management funding.

• How lands are to be declared surplus and returned to private ownership;

• How eminent domain and other land acquisition issues and procedures should be modified;

• Whether or not local governments should have a veto over acquisitions in their jurisdiction where the public land ownership accounts for over 35% of the tax roll;

• Appropriate strategies for evaluating the state's progress in acquisition of conservation and recreation lands based on a review of the "Florida Preservation 2000 Needs and Priorities Addendum Report"; and

• Whether bond money should be used to fund alternative water supply projects and/or environmental restoration projects.

     At one point, many were convinced that the Legislature would simply pass a constitutional amendment for voter approval authorizing issuance of Florida Forever/Florida 2020 bonds and adopt a study commission proposal, leaving to the 1999 legislative session the resolution of the more complex and unresolved issues.

     In the end, the House and Senate could not agree on the fundamental question of how much of the state's future bonding capacity should be pledged to purchase land; how long the bond program should last; and whether or not educational facilities should be included as part of the program. The difference between the House and Senate positions were marked and unresolvable during the last few days of the session.

     The future of P-2000 (or, its successor) is unclear, but the sentiment expressed by most legislators is that a sensible, economically feasible land purchase and water supply program should be part of Florida's environmental efforts. The critical issues remain how water supply usage and creation fit into this "land" purchase program and how acquired lands should be managed for the benefit of all Floridians.

     The 1999 legislative session will likely result in the extension of the P-2000 program, in a compromise form, regardless of the outcome of the Governor's race.