David Guest, Earthjustice: don't stay away for long ... by Alan Farago

David Guest has been one of the most important environmentalists of a Florida generation that is now approaching retirement. David is a few years older than I am but only a few -- and I understand perfectly his inclination to reserve time for reflection, family, friends and travel.

There is more than admiration in my assessment.  David has been lead attorney for Earthjustice on important litigation in which the organization I represent as volunteer board director, Friends of the Everglades, is a plaintiff.  David has been our attorney, and we -- his client.

One of our cases has been to the US Supreme Court twice and still alive in a federal appeals court. We call it "the backpumping case", and it concerns the question whether transfers of polluted from one water body to another requires an EPA pollution discharge permit. Our interpretation of the Clean Water Act is that it does. If it did, all these horrible discharge events plaguing Florida's rivers and estuaries -- to protect Big Sugar mainly -- would require a level of scrutiny that is sliding by the canal locks without more than a passing nod by state and federal regulators.

David and his team's work on behalf of groups like Friends has generated major opposition: by Big Sugar and its partner, the State of Florida, but also by dozens of other states and municipalities and industries that oppose accountability for the costs of pollution.

Toxic algae bloom in Caloosahatchee today

The point is that David Guest 's work has national importance. Florida is that kind of place. When shit goes wrong on the environment here, it goes very wrong. As David pointed out to Bruce Ritchie in his Florida Politico profile, when shit goes wrong in Florida, it is often in a place like the Everglades that is astoundingly beautiful.

David is a leader of his generation of Florida environmentalists. Although he is not an activist per se, his years of experience lead him to a very clear-eyed -- a gimlet eye if you will -- understanding of the weaknesses and foibles of Florida's Everglades movement.  I will miss his company for views unpopular within the ranks.

David Guest's intelligence about these matters had marinated long enough in the morass of the Everglades to distill his wit to a very fine point. This, from Bruce Ritchie's profile:

"I think the permitting strategy of the Scott administration is the same as the strategy for throwing Mardi Gras beads at a parade," Guest retorted. "Somebody yells, and you throw them a permit."

Exactly. Travel safely and well, David Guest.

Environmentalists‘ ’Elvis' reflects on a generation leading Earthjustice
By BRUCE RITCHIE 5:25 a.m. | May. 24, 2016

TALLAHASSEE — It was just after a heavy rainstorm in 1991, and rapids in North Florida’s Jumping Gully Creek had churned runoff from a pulp mill plant just upstream into thick, yellow foam. David Guest, an environmental lawyer who had just become the head of Earthjustice’s Florida office, climbed a tree to photograph it.

Amendment 1 Update. What will the legislature try next? By Geniusofdespair

“Amendment 1 sets clear, identifiable boundaries for the Legislature. What we’re asking from the court is to confirm that these are the boundaries. We cannot require the land be purchased, or pass policy in the Legislature …what we can do is say the amendment means what it says.” - David Guest,  Lead Attorney, Earthjustice

UPDATE on Amendment 1 (we voted  by over 75% to pay for water and land conservation for the Environment. The Legislature and Governor are throwing the money down the toilet on unrelated projects instead. The lawsuit is trying to stop the spending of the money on wacky things).
 
The latest is a second lawsuit was filed by another environmental group, Florida Defenders of the Environment, with a different argument and the Legislature wants to combine it with the Earthjustice suit. The Plantiffs nixed that idea but the legislature could press the matter further.

Amended Complaint filed in December by Earthjustice. Here is our last story on Amendment 1 with the text of the Amendment included as well as the original lawsuit.

031 - Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment & Injuctive & Supplemental Relief

   Original Complaint: 002 - Complaint Concerning Constitutional Challenge to Statute or Ordinance

The Lawsuit on the Land Amendment 1. By Geniusofdespair

“Amendment 1 sets clear, identifiable boundaries for the Legislature. What we’re asking from the court is to confirm that these are the boundaries. We cannot require the land be purchased, or pass policy in the Legislature …what we can do is say the amendment means what it says.” - David Guest

David Guest of Earth Justice is Fighting the Lawsuit for Us

Here is what Amendment 1 said on the ballot that 75.65% of Miami Dade Residents voted for and 75% of voters Statewide (that is a shitload of voters):

Water and Land Conservation - Dedicates
funds to acquire and restore Florida
conservation and recreation lands
Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire,
restore, improve, and manage conservation lands
including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife
habitat; lands protecting water resources and
drinking water sources, including the Everglades,
and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams;
beaches and shores; outdoor recreational
lands; working farms and ranches; and historic
or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of
net revenues from the existing excise tax on
documents for 20 years.
This amendment does not increase or
decrease state revenues. The state revenue
restricted to the purposes specified in the
amendment is estimated to be $648 million
in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and grows to $1.268
billion by the twentieth year. Whether this
results in any additional state expenditures
depends upon future legislative actions and
cannot be determined. Similarly, the impact
on local government revenues, if any, cannot
be determined. No additional local government
costs are expected

So far our State Legislature has fought vigorously to misappropriate the money (about $740 Million this year) and spend it elsewhere. Assholes!! A Lawsuit is underway (filed in June) on behalf of The Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns Riverkeeper and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida.  Be sure to give generously to Environmental Groups that SUE. (Scrib link of Complaint below)

002 - Complaint Concerning Constitutional Challenge to Statute or Ordinance

If you read this, you will note that not much will be happening until AFTER August 20th.

013 - Joint Stipulation - Time for Filing Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss

So in effect, our TAX DOLLARS are being used to fight against our best interest in this matter. We are paying to fight the Environmental Groups.

The law firm Gunster had this to say about Amendment 1, in November 2014 after it passed. Apparently they knew what was going to happen, because it happened (maybe they gave the legislature the ideas on how to get around the Amendment):

Many voters may assume that with Amendment 1 approved, the promised water and land conservation is a done deal. However, the passage of Amendment 1 simply starts a lengthy implementation process that begins with the Florida Legislature.

Because the Florida Legislature appropriates the money that Amendment 1 dedicates, the Legislature will have to decide what Amendment 1 mandates. Some legislators will want to fully redirect this money to environmental interests. But others will work to use the amendment’s vague language to maintain the status quo as they strive to balance environmental interests with myriad other demands for state funds. Any such effort to dilute the impact of Amendment 1 will be likely be met with stiff political opposition and, if necessary, litigation.

This interpretive battle will likely be waged over several key provisions, most notably over the provision allowing the money collected to be spent on the “management, restoration of natural systems.” Some will argue that the Florida Legislature may satisfy the new mandate simply by directing the Amendment 1 money to existing agencies that manage “natural systems” such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. These two agencies are already appropriated more than $1 billion a year, in part to manage natural systems. It will be argued that this appropriation fully satisfies the requirements of Amendment 1, and doing so avoids adding any new money to these purposes in order to satisfy this new constitutional requirement.

Other battles may occur over the Amendment 1 provision stating that the money can be used to finance “the enhancement of public access or recreational enjoyment of conservation lands” or “improvement of land, water areas, and related property interests.”