Floridians have no right to bodies of water 'free of pollution,' court rules
floridaphoenix.com
floridaphoenix.com
Take the pristine state of nature in some location prior to human interaction, and then anything a society of humans does in that location is in some sense going to injure that state. To say you have a Constitutional right, as a resident, to forbid those injuries is essentially to say you have a veto on virtually all activity. So the question isn't whether you have a procedural right to stop pollution, it's how to negotiate the balance of competing interests.
Typical crock of shit thinking from economics. Assumes perfect future prediction combined with absolute awareness of all activity occurring at the molecular level, perfect attribution and ability to rewind time to determine causality/responsibility, that people are generally respectful of the law.
And above all, assumes that economics will price the value of human life (to say nothing of non-human life with emphasis on the word "nothing") as anything but "zero".
The obvious extension to this is that FLoridians have no right to a sustained future existence of humanity. All that remains is to determine how fast capitalism can consume humans and the environment into fictitious unicorn horn currency until nihilism triumphs and we pass into the void.
Like the tree falling in the forest, what is the monetary value of all human bank accounts when all humans that would observe the value of the bank account value are dead?
If I own a piece of land then by virtue of that ownership I get an almost unlimited veto on what is allowed to be done to that piece of land. So if I own a piece of land then I have a right to forbid pollution on it.
If a piece of land is owned by the state then in some sense all state residents have some say in how it is used. They have the right to petition the government (lobby, etc), and I think they should have a right to determine, through the representative government process, what happens to that land. That doesn't mean that each individual person gets their own veto, but that the voters of the state have a right to weigh in on how a piece of land is being used and have the right to elect politicians or approve ballot measures expressing their intent.
And, like, it's obviously not the case that the counter- right exists, either; you don't have a right to utilize public resources. There's a balance of competing equities, and we have a whole system of government, with a legislature to do fact-finding and establish rules, an executive to do enforcement, and a judiciary to sanity-check the rules and make sure they're enforced consistently. It works... pretty badly, but so does every other system you can imagine.
To claim a "right" in the sense meant by the petitioners in the article is to say that there is a rule that exists above most of that system of governance that gives the judiciary the power to overrule all elected authority in the name of preserving clean water. No? Which water is clean and which isn't is a pretty basic function of government.
Whether the pollution in question is in the form of toxic heavy metals, forever chemicals, etc., or just excessive farm runoff that causes algal blooms and kills marine life (or anything else that consumes the water), that seems like the line to draw. If you're making a water system incapable of sustaining life, then... don't.
That's not true.
There's been some great work in the area of 'the tragedy of the commons' by Elinor Ostrom, and others, which shows that not only is it possible to protect the commons without top-down regulation, but it's also quite feasible.
Why would you claim there was no functional alternative, then say it doesn't matter when shown one?
The idea that principles for wisely and sustainably managing a commons would have no connection to regulating against water pollution is bizarre to me. I wouldn't know where to start if you don't see how those overlap.
> What could that even mean?
Read some Ostrom and find out, maybe?
As in, they don't function well.
This level of pedantry might serve you well in some areas of life; but here, now, what are you accomplishing?
Why not focus on the joyous fact that there not only is there huge room for improvement in this area, but people have in fact already done a huge amount of the groundwork?
That belief is very culturally dependent. For example, in "freedom to roam" countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam), you as a landowner do not have the blanket right to prevent people from walking through your land, from picking berries on your land, nor from camping on your land.
In California, the beach below the high-water mark is a public right of way and you as landowner may not prevent people from using is, nor block off paths people use to exercise that right.
In the United States, eminent domain means that no landowner has an unlimited veto.
Since your antecedent is not correct, your logical argument cannot be used to assess the validity of your conclusion.
Available water belongs to the public, not landowner. However, water use rights are assignable.
The right to use water goes first to the person with the oldest claim (the "senior appropriator"). You might have no claim to water running through your land, or as a junior appropriator only get access during wet years.
You may not block a senior appropriator from being able to make their appropriated beneficial use of that water.
As regarding pristine or pollution, quoting the NM constitution, 'The protection of the state's beautiful and healthful environment is hereby declared to be of fundamental importance to the public interest, health, safety and the general welfare. The legislature shall provide for control of pollution and control of despoilment of the air, water and other natural resources of this state, consistent with the use and development of these resources for the maximum benefit of the people.'
I'm not a water rights lawyer. Florida water law is very different from New Mexico. I do not know if the NM legislature has passed laws allowing cities to pass stricter pollution laws.
That said, if your phosphate mine's tailings pond wasn't built to handle the expected consequences of a hurricane, failure to handle said hurricane is no excuse for negligence.
What you describe now has nothing to do with a river and can no longer be called 'pollution'. For one, storm surge flooding has been around long enough that the ecosystem has adapted to the occasional event, making it part of the pristine state.
The powers one level of government doesn’t take trickle down to the next. Since the state level took those powers, the local level cannot.
The representative government processes needs to happen at the state level in Florida.
"If I own a piece of land then by virtue of that ownership I get an almost unlimited veto on what is allowed to be done to that piece of land."
However, this is the way people wished it worked. Due to zoning, eminent domain, and other laws, there is a lot that can be forced on land owners. Then we can even get into deed restrictions and easements.
Soil, you could make an argument for.
The right to no water pollution comes from a moving resource, water passes by a property and goes to another, land doesn't move and hence could have less strict rules.
A balance where the water isn't extremely polluted would seem to be a given, no?
For hundreds of thousands of years, if someone came to your village and refused to stop shitting in the well, they'd be kicked out or worse.
Washing some clothes in the river, or a bit of bathing? Fine. Dumping thousands of gallons of industrial chemicals into the water table? I consider that a violation of not just my right, but the rights of all living things which use that water. It's heinous, and (I would have thought) clearly, obviously, utterly indefensible.
If the past decade taught me anything is that people who don’t feel shame can’t be shamed into doing something obviously right. Or prevent them from doing something obviously wrong.
You need laws on all levels for the obvious things as well.
The underlying issue here is that the state passed a law prohibiting local governments from granting rights to water to their citizens. The state prohibition supersedes the local government, so this local law is only allowed if they can find something that supersedes the state law (eg some part of the state constitution). No such clause exists in the state constitution, nor in any other state law.
If state law or the state constitution was modified to grant that right, the local law would be allowed to stand.
This is less about rights and more about state law superseding local law.
> Take the pristine state of nature in some location prior to human interaction, and then anything a society of humans does in that location is in some sense going to injure that state.
This is not a universally held view of the state of humanity and wilderness. In particular, there are indigenous traditions on this topic which represent a very compelling (perhaps logically vanquishing) critique.
One in particular I can recommend, which I discovered via a discussion on wildfire management here on HN, is this: https://tendingthewild.com/tending-the-wild/
tl;dr for the purposes of this discussion: anthrogenesis is not per se injurious, and is in some important and measurable ways, less injurious than allowing wilderness to grow fallow. Humans are an important part of Earth's ecology.
Looking at it holistically is precisely what makes it good for humans.
Most activities that change the land from its original state are not done for the long term good of humanity, but for short term profit, which is what finances the activity.
They might try to root out an invasive creature, or a disease causing bacteria, but would they root out themselves?
Most likely they'd change their ways and not be so bad for the land. Humans are a smart and very adaptable species. I'm sure we can master that art.
Finding seems to be that the city law is prohibited under a state law, and the state law does not contravene the state constitution and so cannot be invalidated to allow the city's new law. which makes for a ridiculous headline, but doesn't seem wrong on its face.
The problem is Florida's state government reserving environmental protection for itself, and then failing to sufficiently protect its environment...
Was it because it meant to save the environment, or was it to stop towns and cities from frustrating lobby interests?
The state has also prohibited cities from issuing heat ordinances because some localities wanted to mandate water and rest breaks for workers when temperatures are above a certain threshold, and Florida thinks that only restriction that should be on corporations is that they toe the Florida state party line and otherwise not be interfered with in any way.
There are ok-ish third reasons (consistency, etc.) to keep muni governments out of environmental regulation, but this provision is undoubtably meant to frustrate exactly the kind of group it did. The provision was added in 2020, presumably in response to the 2019 Lake Erie Bill of Rights[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_personhood#Unite...
Is there a particular technical solution you had in mind? The world's largest bottle of Dawn soap?
It was one of the worst disasters ever, they were writing the book as they went along. Sometimes the repair is worse than the event (e.g. poisoning the sea life with cleaners or dispersants). Sand is inert, so it may have been the least risky method.
In fact, if you spill motor oil in your driveway, the initial recommended cleanup method is to cover it with sand or cat litter and let it soak up the oil...
The Governor's office would like you to know that tourism is record breaking, has never been better, and Florida is amazing.
* Live music
* Great food
* Bike and pedestrian friendliness
* Wildlife
* Sports and outdoor activities in winter
* Traditional outdoor craft and fruit markets
* Exposure to greater racial, ethnic, and lingual diversity than is present in most of the USA
I don't think any continental European city has the quality and diversity of live music that St. Pete has. Prague is perhaps closest.
Obviously Dublin and Glasgow are world class, if they're a train away for you.
Also, wildlife? And local fruit?
My personal anecdata is that many Europeans come to and enjoy Florida's west coast for these reasons.
Wildlife, I agree, leaves something to be desired. It's unavoidable, as this place has been inhabited since the emergence of our species as a dominant power. It's hard to walk by without stepping on someone's grave (one of the reasons we don't have a subway is that nobody dares to dig and find some invaluable archaeological site).
As for St. Pete, I have my friends who live there, and in Tampa, Orlando, and Miami, and I enjoy their company and host them when they come over here. They know how to throw a party.
Yeah, I've certainly had that feeling many times. :-)
But I do think there's a categorical difference: in several US cities (I use St. Pete as an example, as it has had a beautiful explosion of live music in the past few years), it's possible to see Blues, Rock, Country, Hip-hop, Bluegrass, Jazz and a Grateful Dead cover band all within walking or cycling distance. I've looked high and low in Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen, Madrid, Barcelona, Naples, and while I've seen some good music here an there, I haven't been able to connect quite as tightly.
Now Glasgow, that place is amazing. You can see righteous pub trad, which runs the gammut of sounds from classical to bluegrass, in like four different places every night. It's incredible.
Am I looking in the wrong places?
It's not merely an academic question: I'll be planning my next Europe tour soon, and the venues we might play / bands for whom we might open in Prague are pretty obvious. But elsewhere, we kinda just have to plan our own events for the most part.
Legend says they had staffing problems because, according to company regulations, staff must always greet guests with a smile and Parisians just couldn’t do that.
That's the only reason I'll be spending a night in America's wang.
In my opinion, the biggest challenge our waterways are facing is nitrogen and phosphate runoff from residential lawn fertilizer. As we bulldoze natural environments to build subdivisions, we're adding acres of pristine healthy looking lawns. I live in a coastal region. Depending on the type of grass, it's not possible to maintain a healthy lawn without adding some kind of fertilizer. This is because the soil is sandy and alkaline. Lawns generally want slightly acidic soil.
We want to be able to point the finger at large entities like municipal sewage treatment plants and large farms. That is easier than changing our own habits and expectations around what our yards should look like.
https://5dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2445192/opinion/O...
I'm not saying it's right, but you can imagine where this sort of thing can go sideways. And I'm not even saying it's clear-cut (e.g. see how the Supremacy Clause and 10A work when it comes to Federal/State).
Anyway, obviously people shouldn't be forced to drink crappy water, but methinks that 'right' would have to be applied top-down instead of bottom-up under the U.S. system.
We get into a lot of trouble when judges step outside their bounds.
What’s one person’s “step outside their bounds” is another’s perception of a “dereliction of duty”.
That said, I don’t have a strong opinion on Florida’s case here in this regard as I would need to read more to understand it.
>“Although it is an admirable goal, we know of no provision that is authorized in either general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution, nor has one been provided by Speak Up, which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem,'” the judges wrote.
I think the phrase he quoted was from the case filing. What would it mean if you took that literally? It would probably mean that a Floridian has a right for all of Florida's waterways to be untouched by human activity of any kind, as anything we do can potentially pollute or disturb ecosystems (even if to an insignificant degree). It would also mean that people whose property is under water or bounded by water would be severely restricted as to what can be done with their property.
Part of a judge's job is to not waste everyone's time. If he does not think he has the authority to issue a legitimate ruling on the matter, it is his obligation to defer the issue to someone who can handle it properly, such as the legislature or a higher court.