Advocates behind a voter-backed “right to clean water” charter amendment for the City of Titusville filed a motion Thursday with the Fifth District Court of Appeal, asking for a rehearing in the court’s recent decision against the measure.
RELATED: Appeals court denies ‘right to clean water’ in Titusville
Nearly 83 percent of Titusville voters in 2022 approved the proposed “right to clean water” amendment, which states “any resident of Titusville may bring a legal action, in the name of the resident or in the name of the Waters of Titusville, in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the right to clean water.”
Put simply, the measure would empower Titusville residents to sue the city to take action on restoring area waters to better health. After voters approved the amendment, the city sued, alleging it was “exceptionally vague.” But in November 2023, a court struck down the city’s claim, ruling in favor of the clean water advocates behind the measure.
Now, in another twist, an appellate court just ruled Titusville’s clean water amendment is preempted by a state law enacted in 2020. The Clean Waterways Act blocks local governments from granting legal rights to any part of the natural environment, including bodies of water.
But advocates argue the Titusville amendment doesn’t violate that state law, which they call unconstitutional to begin with.
“A local government regulation, ordinance, code, rule, comprehensive plan, charter, or any other provision of law may not recognize or grant any legal rights to a plant, an animal, a body of water, or any other part of the natural environment that is not a person or political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01(8) or grant such person or political subdivision any specific rights relating to the natural environment not otherwise authorized in general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution.”
SB 712/Florida’s Clean Waterways Act
Michael Myjak chairs Speak Up Titusville, the nonprofit pushing for the amendment — and now, a new decision from the appeals court. He says the Clean Waterways Act violates Florida’s home rule: a provision in the state constitution that gives local governments the flexibility to adopt any laws not conflicting with others at the state or federal level.
“[The law] cuts to the very fiber of what home rule is all about, and our ability, according to our state statutes and constitution, to create home rules that are stronger and more adept to our local environment than the state can provide in general, across everywhere,” Myjak said.
Now in place for more than 50 years, home rule powers are “the most precious powers a city in Florida has,” according to the Florida League of Cities.
Myjak and others behind the Titusville amendment are just one piece of a much larger, statewide effort for a “right to clean water” constitutional amendment.
“We’re talking about everybody’s water: yours, mine, everybody’s,” Myjak said. “It has to be at that [state] level, because it affects everybody equally. It’s a non-partisan issue.”
A statewide right to clean water would empower citizens to take a more active role in protecting Florida waters from harm, like pollution from biosolids and fertilizers, according to the amendment platform. Right now, many of the state’s waters are polluted enough to fail water quality standards, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Screengrab, FDEP Water Quality Assessments mapping tool
The recent ruling against Titusville’s right to clean water rests on the state law forbidding legal rights for water bodies and other parts of nature. But Myjak contends that interpretation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Titusville’s amendment:
“This has to do with our right to clean water, not the right of clean water,” Myjak said. “I have a right for that water to stay clean.”
That distinction sets Titusville’s amendment apart, Myjak says, from Orange County’s “rights of nature” charter amendment — also approved overwhelmingly by voters — which a judge struck down in 2022.
The advocates now hope the appeals court will agree to hear their case a second time.