Friday, November 13, 2026
As the 2026 Florida Legislative Session heads into its final stretch, conservation advocates warn that several major proposals could have lasting consequences for Southwest Florida’s quality of life. Preemption of local governments, acceleration of sprawl, and funding pressures were among the themes of various proposals, raising concern for the future of rural and agricultural areas – the most vulnerable of such schemes.
HB 299 / SB 354
One of the most controversial measures is the so-called “Blue Ribbon Projects” bill (SB 354 / HB 299), which would create a special designation for developments of 10,000 acres or more. If certain criteria are met, local governments would be required to approve the development, even if it doesn’t adhere to local land use or zoning laws.
Although the House added a public hearing requirement, local approval is still mandatory if conditions are satisfied. Gil Smart, Policy Director at Friends of the Everglades (FOTE), is apprehensive of the proposal, even with the additional amendment. “The reality is, regardless of that [the public hearing], if these projects check all the right boxes, they must be approved by the county involved,” Explained Smart. “So, you could have a public hearing process, but what the public says won’t matter.”
While lawmakers often frame these proposals as solutions to Florida’s affordable housing crisis, there are no ironclad guarantees that the new housing would actually be affordable long term. FOTE Executive Director Eve Samples said the state appears to be moving in the opposite direction of responsible growth management. For Southwest Florida – where traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and development pressure are already daily concerns – these bills could determine how and where future growth happens.
HB 299 passed its last committee of reference, State Affairs, this week. According to Audubon Florida, the shift in the approval process from a zoning action to a comprehensive amendment is hopeful. However, they remain unsettled that reserve areas may need formal protection.
HB 433 / SB 290
Another area of concern is the “Farm Bill” (HB 433 / SB 290). The large agriculture omnibus bill is said to be a priority of agricultural commissioner Wilton Simpson and the ag community in general, with various provisions that benefit agriculture.
Section 48 of the bill – what many people are calling the “muzzle clause” – would expand Florida’s existing food libel law, which protects agricultural companies from unfair or incorrect criticism. The ‘muzzle clause” would expand the law to include protection for non-perishable items like sugar and the farming methods used to cultivate them, i.e., sugarcane burning.
Critics say the proposal could allow powerful agricultural interests to sue opponents who criticize sugarcane burning – a practice known to cause severe air pollution and respiratory illnesses. The “muzzle clause” has been amended out of the Senate bill but remains in the House bill as of late.
Another provision that remains in both the “Farm Bills” is located in Section 6, dealing with the designation and sale of “surplus” conservation lands for agricultural purposes. If passed, this bill would allow state-owned conservation lands to be declared “surplus” and sold if deemed “bona fide agriculturally suitable.” Additionally, direct proceeds from the land would go to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services rather than being reinvested in conservation.
Under current law, Florida already has a structured process for declaring conservation lands surplus that requires review and public input and prioritizes conservation goals. The concern is that Section 6 could create a streamlined pathway for selling public conservation lands and undermine long-term land acquisition strategies.
During Senate committee review, an amendment was adopted that exempts state parks, state forests, wildlife management areas, and Everglades restoration lands from being designated “surplus.” However, concerns persist for the conservation lands that remain vulnerable.
HB 433 / SB 290 passed 22-3 in the State Affairs Committee. No amendments were adopted to clarify the surplus process language. Representative Alvarez also stated that surplus conservation land for agricultural use would be determined by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection staff to be forwarded to the Acquisition and Restoration Council and ultimately to the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for final approval.
HB 399 / SB 208
Environmental groups are also closely watching a sweeping land-use bill (HB 399 / SB 290) that has recently advanced from the House State Affairs Committee on a 16-10 vote. The bill contains several provisions that could significantly affect how growth is managed in Florida –particularly in fast-growing regions like Southwest Florida.
One major component of the bill would repeal and preempt local requirements that cities or counties approve expansions of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) or Urban Development Boundaries (UDBs) by a supermajority vote.
Urban growth boundaries are intended to contain development within areas that already have infrastructure, helping to prevent sprawl into rural and environmentally sensitive lands. By removing enhanced voting requirements, the bill would make it easier to expand those boundaries.
“These bills reflect the sentiment that if we just build more over a broader swath of area, houses will get cheaper, and that is no guarantee. In fact, there is plenty of evidence and research supporting that if we build closer to the urban core and transit hubs, it can really bring down the cost of housing,” explained Samples. “The only people it’s cheaper for when you allow sprawl is the developers.”
“Streamlining development handcuffs local communities by telling them they must approve it. The citizens have no say,” added Smart. “Will those savings actually be passed on to home buyers, or is it ultimately going to be at the whim of the developer rather than what the market is clamoring for?”
A newly added section has drawn additional scrutiny. It creates a pathway for so-called “large destination resorts” – defined as developments with 500 or more guest rooms and a 70% occupancy rate over the previous three years – to receive administrative approval for certain special exceptions or variances affecting up to 20% of a parcel. Those approvals could bypass public hearings before city or county commissions.
Environmental groups, including Audubon Florida, argue that the provision shifts decision-making away from local elected officials and reduces public oversight of major development changes.
A late amendment that would have required counties to weaken rural growth protections or compensate landowners was ultimately withdrawn.
Stay Informed and Use Your Voice
The 2026 session has revealed a clear tension in Tallahassee: how to accommodate growth without sacrificing the lands and waters that define Florida. For Southwest Florida, where environmental resources drive tourism, property values, and quality of life, that balance carries particular weight.
There are several other bills not mentioned in this article that could drastically impact Florida’s environment and quality of life. Credible environmental organizations often keep a running list of bills they are carefully monitoring, with updates and explanations of their concerns. Some of those lists can be found at the following links:
Residents who want a voice in those decisions can reach out to their legislators, follow committee hearings online, and engage locally when growth proposals arise.
Federal Representatives of Collier County:
In Florida’s legislative process, some of the biggest decisions happen in the final days. For Southwest Florida residents concerned about growth, conservation, and quality of life, there is still time to weigh in before the session concludes.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here