Askew v. Game & Fresh Water Commission
336 So. 2d 556 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two constitutional provisions appear to conflict, they must be construed together to give effect to both as a harmonious whole, rather than allowing one provision to nullify the other.
Facts:
- The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) planned to control aquatic weeds in Deer Point Lake in Bay County, Florida.
- The DNR's plan involved introducing a non-native species of fish, the White Amur, into the lake.
- The DNR was acting under state statutes that gave it authority to control aquatic weeds and exempted it from needing a permit from the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC).
- The GFC asserted its constitutional authority over all fresh water aquatic life.
- The Bream Fisherman's Association, a group of local anglers, opposed the introduction of the non-native White Amur.
Procedural Posture:
- The Bream Fisherman's Association filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Leon County to enjoin the Department of Natural Resources from introducing White Amur fish into Deer Point Lake.
- The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission also filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Department of Natural Resources.
- The trial court consolidated the two cases.
- The Circuit Court, as the court of first instance, entered an order finding the statutes authorizing the Department's actions to be unconstitutional.
- Askew and the Department of Natural Resources, as appellants, filed a direct appeal of the Circuit Court's order to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida Legislature have the authority to enact statutes empowering the Department of Natural Resources to control aquatic weeds by introducing fish, despite a state constitutional provision granting the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission non-judicial powers over fresh water aquatic life?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boyd
Yes, the statutes are constitutional. Although Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution grants the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission broad power over fresh water aquatic life, it must be read in harmony with Article II, Section 7, which establishes a state policy to conserve natural resources and abate pollution. To find the challenged statutes unconstitutional would improperly strip the Legislature of its power to enact laws to carry out the environmental protection mandate of Article II, Section 7. By construing both constitutional provisions together, the court gives effect to each, allowing the Legislature to empower the Department of Natural Resources to manage water pollution through methods that may involve aquatic life, an area that would otherwise fall under the Commission's sole jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the principle of constitutional harmonization in the context of conflicting agency jurisdictions. It clarifies that a specific constitutional grant of authority to one agency does not completely divest the legislature of its power to legislate on overlapping matters under a different, broader constitutional mandate. This prevents constitutional gridlock and ensures the state can address complex issues like environmental protection that may not fit neatly into one agency's designated sphere. The ruling affirms the legislature's central role in implementing broad constitutional policies, even when doing so creates jurisdictional overlap between executive bodies.
