Florida’s annual legislative session ended March 13 with the feeling that the state’s natural environment dodged a bullet.
Some bad bills did make it through due to the sheer volume of damaging legislation proposed this session. But several of the worst bills died, while others were stripped of their most objectionable provisions. A bright spot: The Legislature enacted new rules to curtail Governor DeSantis’ spending of emergency dollars on the ICE detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has inflicted real harm on the Everglades.
Though regular session adjourned March 13, the Legislature will soon return to Tallahassee to hash out the budget. It’s possible that some of the concerning “dead” bills could be resurrected and tacked onto budget implementing bills, as has happened in recent years.
One of the most significant pieces of legislation passed this year reins in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ use of emergency funds to pay for immigration enforcement. Throughout the session, Republicans and Democrats criticized DeSantis for the staggering cost and environmental harm of “Alligator Alcatraz,” which was built with money from the state’s emergency fund that is typically earmarked for natural disaster response. DeSantis declared immigration an “emergency” in 2023 (and then extended that declaration more than 20 times) and tapped the fund for the Everglades detention center.
Under Senate Bill 7040, passed the last day of session, the governor can still declare emergencies and access the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund — but continued spending after an extension of the emergency now requires approval from the state Legislative Budget Commission. In practice, DeSantis can still use the fund, but he needs additional legislative permission to keep using it. It was a check on DeSantis’ powers and shows lawmakers wanted to reassert some authority. This additional oversight is sorely needed after “Alligator Alcatraz” was recklessly built in the heart of the Everglades, harming the ecosystem at extraordinary expense to taxpayers.
Other proposals that could have harmed Florida’s ecosystem thankfully fell by the wayside this session.
House Bill 479 and Senate Bill 718, “Land and Water Management,” sought to prohibit local governments from enacting their own rules regarding water quality, water quantity, wetlands and pollution reduction — preempting all such authority to the state. But HB 479 was overhauled with an amendment that removed most of the bad provisions, and SB 718 never had a hearing.
Another potentially damaging bill generated lots of headlines during the session but ultimately fell short. “Blue Ribbon Projects,” HB 299/SB 354 sought to create a framework for more easily approving huge developments of 15,000 acres and up that devote 60 percent of the land to a reserve area. If the projects satisfied a list of legislative requirements, they could be developed over 50 years into towns and cities regardless of underlying comprehensive planning and land use allocations. The proposal ran into significant opposition from key Republican legislators down the home stretch as rural legislators in particular worried about the impact on their districts. The bills died with the session.
Also faltering this session was HB 105/SB 588, “Local Government Enforcement Actions,” which would have prohibited local governments from taking enforcement actions deemed “arbitrary or unreasonable.” Violators could have faced up to $50,000 in damages, along with court costs and attorney fees — which likely would have chilled even necessary and prudent enforcement action
Good bills that didn’t make it this year include HB 669/SB 1042, which would have required the state to post signs identifying polluted waterways sooner and more prominently; HB 699 was amended with most of the beneficial language removed and SB 1042 never moved.
And the “fix” to the controversial 2025 Senate Bill 180 never materialized as SB 840/HB 1465 didn’t make it past the House. The bills would have narrowed the scope of SB 180, which imposed a three-year freeze on local planning authority; attempts to tack SB 840 on as an amendment to another bill, HB 399 (see below), were ultimately unsuccessful.
Two bad bills passed after having the worst provisions stripped out. One of the most controversial proposals this session was the state’s “farm bill,” (SB 290/HB 433, “Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services”). An early version of the bill contained a “muzzle clause” which would have allowed producers of non-perishable products (like sugar) to sue over disparagement of its crop or farming methods (like burning sugarcane fields prior to harvest). These sections were removed after pushback from Friends of the Everglades and other groups, but another damaging provision remained, allowing the state to determine if any publicly owned conservation lands are suitable for “bona fide agriculture.” If so, the lands could be sold for agricultural use. This excludes state forests, state parks, water management areas or lands within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
HB 399/SB 208, “Land Use and Development Regulations,” stirred controversy over its provisions targeting the Urban Development Boundary in Miami-Dade and other counties. First, the bill would have lowered the threshold for major land-use changes, requiring a simple majority (rather than a supermajority) to approve those changes. Second, the bills sought to have the state’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) conduct a study on the effect of removing urban development boundaries — a clear precursor to attempts to get rid of those boundaries. The proposal generated pushback from some Miami-area Republicans, with Sen. Alexis Calatayud sponsoring an amendment that stripped the UDB provisions from the bill. Then senators voted down a late amendment that would have allowed anyone who owns land outside the UDB to challenge the designation and seek compensation from the state if denied the ability to use or develop their land as they like. The bill that ultimately passed still contains bad provisions, like a measure undercutting local control by effectively requiring Miami Beach to approve variances that would allow tall water slides at the historic Fontainebleau Hotel — but it could have been far worse.
One bad bill did win final approval with numerous bad provisions intact. Senate Bill 686, “Agricultural Enclaves,” facilitates and expedites development on farmland. It allows for administrative approval — with no public input — of residential development on any parcel deemed an “agricultural enclave,” bordered by existing development, so long as the proposal matches the use, density and intensity of adjacent parcels. Any “enclave” next to an interstate highway may be developed for commercial, industrial, or single-family residential purposes if one or more adjacent parcels is the same density or intensity as the proposed development.
Lastly, the Senate and House remain far apart as of this writing on the budget, with the Senate spending plan totaling $115 billion compared to the House’s $113.6 billion proposal. Both chambers must return to the capitol to hash out the budget but no date has been set.
