HOW GREAT IS THE GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE?

How Great is the Great Outdoors Initiative?

Recently there has been news of a plan proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to alter the kinds of uses allowed in Florida state parks and preserved lands. Governor Ron DeSantis administration recently announced the plan to build golf courses, pickleball courts, and other recreational facilities in nine state parks as part of the “Great Outdoors Initiative”.   This proposal has faced significant opposition from conservation groups and the public. As of August 27, 2024, DEP was reported to be at least temporarily withdrawing the plan for further review. 

One wild species potentially threatened by increased public access and reduction of natural habitat is reported to be the Scrub Jay. The Florida Scrub-Jay is classified as a threatened species. It is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and by Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Rule. The population of this bird has significantly declined due to habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation. 

The Florida Scrub-Jay is unique because it is considered the only bird species that lives exclusively in Florida. Conservation efforts are being made to protect and restore its habitat and prevent further decline. 

There is little question that the appeal of natural habitat is great and public enjoyment of the outdoors, especially in a wild state, is increasingly difficult.  However, in the event the initiative golf or other activities in parks were to be revived, there would be a question of just what activities are to be excluded from park land.  In some states, the trust law is very definite about what is a public, versus a private use or activity.  For example, in Illinois there is a public trust doctrine that is very much alive.  In the case of Chicago’s lakefront, for historical and legal reasons, the public trust doctrine requires that much of the areas are to be “forever open, clear, and free” 

Since an Illinois Supreme Court case in 1892, the State’s sovereignty over submerged lands has been recognized, and in recent years some serious controversies have had to be resolved by the courts.  In one case, a lakeside museum was held not sufficiently open or public, whereas a parcel further inland was allowed to be converted from a public City park into the Barack Obama Presidential Library.  Given that facilities like inland state parks in Florida are not located on artificially filled or previously navigable wetland, some may see a need for better definition and clearer articulation of public availability and “natural preservation” in particular natural areas of Florida. 

Before there is litigation if the Initiative is reinstituted to include golf and pickle ball, etc., a sincere effort to find some consensus and increase clarity for the future beauty and preservation of Florida would seem worthwhile.