Guest commentary: SCCF provides Week 5 legislative update
The House released its budget proposal late on Feb. 12 and the Senate released its proposed budget at 3 pm on Feb. 13.
The $113.6 billion House spending plan is close to $1 billion below last year’s final state budget of $114.8 billion. The Senate’s budget proposal is $115 billion. Gov. Ron DeSantis’ current proposed budget is $117.4 billion.
The Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF) will include an analysis of the environmental budget proposals in the Week 6 update.
Many of the subcommittees met for the last time last week, signaling that if a bill has not been heard yet it its first committee, it is unlikely that it will advance this session.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PREEMPTION/CITIZEN’S RIGHTS
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Florida Farm Bill) — SB 290 by Sen. Keith Truenow was passed unanimously in its last committee vote before moving to be heard by the full Senate. Sen. Jonathan Martin filed a late surprise amendment, which was approved by the committee, to completely remove the very controversial “muzzle clause” or disparagement clause. Many members of the public in attendance still spoke to thank the committee for removing the clause and warned of the threats to free speech had this clause remained in the bill.
Unfortunately, the bill contains other troubling sections, including requiring the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to determine whether any newly purchased state-owned conservation lands are “suitable” for bona fide agricultural purposes. This would not include state parks, state forests or wildlife management areas, but would include conservation lands held by water management districts. If those lands are identified as suitable, they would be sold off, and an easement would be put in place to guarantee those lands would be maintained for agricultural purposes.
Water management district properties in Southwest Florida that could be at risk are any new properties purchased for the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), or the many district properties that are adjacent to county-owned Conservation 20/20 preserves. Should a state conservation property be converted to agriculture under this proposal, the public would no longer have access to the land.
And, the disparagement clause may not be completely in the rear-view mirror. The similar House version, HB 433, which still contains the disparagement clause, has received strong support from the House members and will be heard in its last committee, House State Affairs, as early as this week.
All eyes will be on the House and on the budget conference process, where deleted sections of a bill can and often do reappear.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/LAND USE
Blue Ribbon Projects — SB 354 by Sen. Stan McClain passed its second of three committee stops by a vote of 8-4. The bill upends the existing local government planning process by proposing that any private development over 10,000 acres should be approved if the landowner is willing to meet certain criteria, including setting aside 60% of the land for a “reserve” area.
By allowing for administrative approval, the bill would completely eliminate public input for projects that would bring immense impacts to local citizens. Alarmingly, the bill also removes local government from any effective role in approving a development of this size, because if a “blue ribbon” project meets the criteria of the bill, it cannot be denied. The local government and the community will be completely removed from the decision-making process of city-sized developments.
Although during committee discussion, the bill sponsor attempted to clarify the uses in the proposed “reserve” areas eliminating golf courses and data centers, it was concerning to some members that the 60% set-aside would allow many other intense uses including utility infrastructure (solar fields), agriculture, recreation (pickleball, swimming pools, conference centers) and storm water lakes, potentially leaving little for the advertised incentive for the bill — conservation areas.
Public input pointed out many problems, conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in the bill, but some good suggestions, including requiring an inventory of natural areas to be designated along with conservation guarantees in the event of ownership change.
Unfortunately, the bill passed with many ambiguities in place and sets a dangerous and harmful path forward for all future development in Florida.
The similar House version, HB 299, by Rep. Lauren Melo, has already passed its first of three committees and was referred to the House Commerce Committee next.
ENERGY
Prohibited Local Government Policies Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Net-Zero Policies) — HB 1217 by Reps. John Snyder and Berny Jacques passed its second of three committees by a vote of 11-4. The bill prohibits local governments from setting net-zero energy efficiency policies and deems them detrimental to the state’s energy security.
A minority of committee members pushed back that there is no evidence of “adverse” impacts from existing local government net-zero policies, but the bill sponsor stated the bill was necessary to prevent any future possible adverse impacts. Additionally, public input showed support for renewable energy innovation in Florida and stated that the bill would squash investment and job growth and in these sectors.
The similar Senate bill, SB 1628, by Sen. Bryan Avila, has also cleared its first committee and is headed to Senate Finance and Tax next.
Check out our 2026 Legislative Tracker at https://sccf.org/what-we-do/2026-legislative-session/ to see a table of the bills that the SCCF is following, updated daily during session.
Holly Schwartz is policy associate for the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). Founded in 1967, the SCCF’s mission is to protect and care for Southwest Florida’s coastal ecosystems. For more information, visit sccf.org.