An Examination of Environmental Actions

As a travel blogger and Travel Agent, my politics isn't important, but I am against big, greedy companies like Disney World, the housing authorities, and Walmart destroying our Florida wetlands. I would love nothing more than to bulldoze over Disney World and plant orange groves.

I stand with my Governor DeSantis on this subject

Florida's wetlands represent one of America's most precious and imperiled natural resources. From the vast sawgrass expanses of the Everglades to the mangrove forests lining our coasts, these ecosystems provide immeasurable value—filtering water, preventing flooding, supporting wildlife, and defining the character of our state. As Florida grapples with unprecedented growth and development pressures, the question of how our leaders approach wetlands protection carries profound consequences for generations to come.

Since taking office in 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis has positioned himself as an advocate for Florida's natural systems, making environmental stewardship a centerpiece of his administration. His rhetoric has been consistently emphatic: protecting Florida's water and lands matters deeply, and his policies reflect that commitment. But beneath the press releases and budget announcements lies a more complicated record—one that warrants careful examination by anyone who cares about the future of Florida's wetlands.

A New Direction for Florida's Environmental Policy

When DeSantis assumed the governorship, he signaled an apparent departure from his predecessor's approach to environmental issues. Governor Rick Scott drew criticism from environmental advocates for what they characterized as regulatory rollbacks and reduced funding for conservation programs. DeSantis, by contrast, made environmental headlines early in his term by mandating a ban on face masks in Florida's waterways—a small but symbolically significant gesture that suggested a different tone.

The governor's early actions went further than symbolic gestures. He appointed scientists and environmentalists to leadership positions at the Department of Environmental Protection and the water management districts, a notable shift from previous administrations. He also created the Office of Environmental Accountability and Transparency, designed to ensure that state agencies would be held responsible for meeting environmental standards. These appointments and institutional changes signaled to environmental advocates that their concerns would receive a more receptive hearing in Tallahassee than they had in years past.

DeSantis framed his environmental agenda in terms that resonated broadly across Florida's political landscape. He spoke about protecting Florida's quality of life, preserving the natural beauty that drew residents to the state, and ensuring that future generations could enjoy the same Florida that current residents had inherited. This messaging attempted to bridge traditional divides between development interests and conservation advocates, suggesting that economic prosperity and environmental protection could be pursued together rather than in opposition.

Everglades Restoration: The Centerpiece Initiative

No aspect of DeSantis's environmental record has received more attention than his approach to Everglades restoration. The River of Grass represents an ecosystem of national and international significance—a unique landscape found nowhere else on Earth, providing habitat for endangered species and serving as a natural water supply for millions of Floridians. Decades of human intervention—water diversions, agricultural runoff, urban development—have left the Everglades degraded and diminished, and restoration efforts have been ongoing for years with mixed results.

DeSantis positioned himself as an advocate for accelerating Everglades restoration. In his first year, he secured the largest allocation of state funding for Everglades restoration in Florida's history, committing $360 million toward various projects aimed at improving water quality and restoring natural water flows. This represented a dramatic increase from previous budgets and demonstrated, at least in terms of financial commitment, that restoration was a priority for his administration.

The funding supported multiple initiatives, including projects to reduce harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee that have periodically sent polluted water flowing into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers, devastating estuarine ecosystems and causing toxic algal blooms along coastlines. These discharges, a longstanding source of frustration for coastal communities and environmental advocates, became a focal point of DeSantis's rhetoric. He criticized previous administrations for failing to address the discharges effectively and promised that his approach would deliver results.

Beyond initial funding, DeSantis advocated for and signed legislation to create the Resilient Florida program, designed to help communities prepare for sea-level rise and flooding impacts. While not exclusively focused on wetlands, this program acknowledged the interconnectedness of Florida's water systems and the need for comprehensive planning to address changing conditions. The legislation required state agencies to develop a unified sea level rise projection and provided funding for vulnerability assessments and adaptation projects.

The Big Cypress Basin Expansion: A Controversial Decision

Among the most consequential actions affecting wetlands during DeSantis's tenure was his decision to remove roughly 320,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands in Southwest Florida from the Big Cypress Basin. This action, taken through executive order in 2022, transferred jurisdiction over these lands from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, fundamentally changing how the area would be managed and regulated.

The lands in question include portions of the Big Cypress National Preserve and other ecologically significant areas that had been subject to protections under the water management district. Environmental advocates strongly opposed the transfer, arguing that the water management districts possessed essential expertise in managing hydrology and that moving jurisdiction to DEP would weaken protections. They pointed out that the water management districts were created specifically to manage water resources across Florida's complex landscapes. In contrast, DEP's primary mission focused on pollution control and regulatory compliance rather than comprehensive water resource management.

Supporters of the reorganization, including some development interests, argued that consolidating authority would streamline decision-making and reduce regulatory confusion. The DeSantis administration characterized the move as improving efficiency and ensuring better coordination among state agencies. The governor's office emphasized that Florida remained committed to protecting these lands and that the change would not result in diminished environmental standards.

The controversy surrounding this decision illustrated a recurring tension in Florida environmental policy. Environmental advocates argued that the administration was prioritizing development interests over ecosystem protection, while administration supporters contended that the changes were administrative improvements that would not harm wetlands. The episode demonstrated that evaluating DeSantis's environmental record requires looking beyond budget numbers and press releases to examine how regulatory authority and protections are structured in practice.

Regulatory Actions and Permitting Decisions

The health of Florida's wetlands ultimately depends not only on funding for restoration projects but also on how the state regulates activities that could damage these ecosystems. Wetlands permitting decisions—whether to allow dredging, filling, or development in wetland areas—determine in real time whether wetlands will be preserved or lost. Examining these decisions provides crucial insight into an administration's actual commitment to wetlands protection.

During DeSantis's tenure, the administration emphasized streamlining permitting processes to reduce bureaucratic delays that hindered development and infrastructure projects. Environmental advocates expressed concern that efforts to expedite permitting might come at the expense of a thorough review of impacts on wetlands and water quality. They pointed to changes in how wetlands were classified and regulated, arguing that narrowing the scope of what qualified for protection would result in the loss of wetlands that previously would have been preserved.

The administration responded that modernizing regulations was necessary to reflect current science and legal definitions and that protections for truly significant ecological resources remained robust. Officials argued that previous regulatory frameworks had become overly burdensome without actually improving environmental outcomes, and that smarter regulations could protect the environment more effectively than process-heavy requirements.

Specific permitting decisions drew criticism from environmental groups. Projects involving wetland impacts across the state raised concerns about whether the administration was adequately considering the cumulative effects of development on wetland systems. Environmental advocates filed legal challenges against several permits, arguing that state agencies had failed to apply standards designed to protect water resources properly. The outcomes of these legal battles provided important evidence about whether courts believed the administration was fulfilling its environmental obligations.

Funding Allocations: Following the Money

Budget allocations offer perhaps the clearest quantitative evidence of an administration's priorities. On this measure, DeSantis's record appears strong by certain metrics. The governor repeatedly emphasized his commitment to environmental funding, and the budgets approved during his tenure included substantial allocations for land acquisition, restoration projects, and environmental programs.

The governor championed the Florida Forever program, which funds the acquisition of conservation lands across the state. While funding levels for Florida Forever had fluctuated in previous years, DeSantis advocated for and secured significant appropriations, enabling the state to purchase parcels containing important wetlands and watersheds. These acquisitions ensured that certain wetlands would be permanently protected from development. However, they also raised questions about whether acquisition alone was sufficient when existing protected lands remained threatened by surrounding development or inadequate management.

Funding for the water management districts—regional agencies responsible for managing water resources, including wetlands—also increased during DeSantis's tenure. These additional resources enabled the districts to step up restoration efforts, improve water quality monitoring, and enhance flood protection programs. Environmental advocates acknowledged these investments while noting that funding levels remained insufficient to address the full scope of Florida's water challenges.

The budget for the Department of Environmental Protection grew substantially during DeSantis's administration, reflecting his stated priority of strengthening environmental enforcement and programs. This funding supported additional staff to review permits, monitor water quality, and enforce environmental regulations. However, some observers noted that the growth in DEP's budget coincided with increases in the agency's responsibilities, making it difficult to assess whether per-capita enforcement capacity had actually improved.

The Criticism from Environmental Advocates

Despite the investments and rhetorical commitment, environmental organizations have leveled significant criticism at DeSantis's record on wetlands. These critiques merit serious consideration by anyone seeking a balanced understanding of his environmental legacy.

Critics point to what they characterize as a pattern of prioritizing development interests over environmental protection when the two conflict. They note that while restoration funding and land acquisition are valuable, they cannot fully compensate for the permanent loss of wetlands to development. Every wetland filled for a housing project or commercial development represents an ecosystem function that cannot be restored or replaced, regardless of how much money the state spends on restoration elsewhere.

Environmental advocates have expressed particular concern about the cumulative impact of development on Florida's wetland systems. Even if individual permits meet technical requirements, the cumulative effect of allowing wetland fill across multiple projects can fragment and degrade wetland complexes, diminishing their ecological value. Critics argue that the DeSantis administration has not adequately considered these cumulative impacts in its permitting decisions.

The Big Cypress Basin transfer remains a focal point of criticism. Environmental groups characterize the move as an effort to weaken protections for sensitive lands by placing them under an agency with less expertise in water resource management. They point to subsequent decisions involving these lands as evidence that their concerns were justified, arguing that the protections afforded to these areas have diminished since the transfer.

Additionally, critics note that DeSantis has supported policies promoting increased development statewide, including in environmentally sensitive areas. They argue that a truly pro-environment administration would implement policies to concentrate growth in already-developed areas rather than encouraging expansion into natural lands. From this perspective, the restoration funding, while welcome, cannot substitute for policies that would prevent wetland loss in the first place.

Assessing the Record: What Has Actually Been Achieved?

Evaluating DeSantis's wetlands record requires weighing multiple factors and acknowledging genuine complexity. The picture that emerges is not easily characterized as either a conservation triumph or an environmental betrayal.

There is no question that the DeSantis administration has directed more state funding toward environmental programs than recent predecessors. The Everglades restoration investments, Florida Forever allocations, and water management district funding represent real resources devoted to protecting and restoring wetland systems. These investments have enabled projects that improve water quality, restore natural hydrology, and protect sensitive lands from development. Environmental advocates who worked with previous administrations readily acknowledge that securing funding has been easier under DeSantis.

At the same time, the regulatory and policy decisions raise legitimate questions about whether the administration has done enough to prevent wetland loss. The Big Cypress Basin transfer, changes to permitting processes, and specific permit decisions have all drawn criticism from environmental advocates with expertise in Florida's water systems. Whether one views these decisions as reasonable modernizations or concerning rollbacks depends substantially on one's prior assumptions about the appropriate balance between development and conservation.

The truth likely lies in the tension between these perspectives. DeSantis has demonstrated a genuine commitment to environmental funding and has prioritized issues such as Everglades restoration in ways previous governors did not. However, his administration has also made policy choices that environmental advocates believe will result in wetland losses that could have been prevented. The resulting environmental outcomes—measured in wetlands preserved or lost, water quality improved or degraded—will unfold over years and decades, making definitive judgments about his legacy premature.

Looking Forward: The Challenge Ahead

Regardless of how one assesses the current administration's record, the fundamental challenges facing Florida's wetlands will persist long beyond any single governor's tenure. Sea level rise, population growth, and changing climate conditions will stress wetland systems in ways that existing protections may not adequately address. Dealing with these challenges will require sustained commitment, adequate funding, and regulatory frameworks sophisticated enough to balance competing demands.

Florida's wetlands do not respect political boundaries, and their protection cannot be achieved through executive actions alone. The interplay between state, regional, and local governments, combined with federal agencies that share jurisdiction over many water and wetland issues, creates a regulatory landscape of remarkable complexity. Effective protection requires coordination among these entities in ways that have sometimes been lacking.

For Floridians who care about wetlands, the practical question is not simply whether to praise or criticize any particular administration but how to ensure that wetlands receive the protection they need regardless of who holds office. This means supporting conservation funding, demanding rigorous permitting standards, engaging in the political process at the local and state levels, and holding officials accountable for their environmental decisions.

The DeSantis administration has made wetlands a more prominent political issue in Florida than they have been in years. Whether that heightened attention translates into lasting environmental progress will depend on factors well beyond any single governor's control—including whether future administrations maintain the funding commitments, whether regulatory frameworks prove adequate to changing conditions, and whether Floridians as a whole remain engaged in protecting the natural systems that make our state unique.