Anytime a new regulation or restriction comes up, always ask:
1. How much will this cost?
2. How many jobs will it kill?
3. What is the potential benefit compared to the downsides?
I only support regulations if the benefits of 3 outweigh all the costs.
My guess is that this will do too much harm to the economy, but I also support keeping the environment protected. As such, I don't know how I'd stand on this....
You should also be asking, "how much will
not doing this cost"? Oftentimes, proposals like this might involve a certain amount of upfront cost (which is all that some people will think about), but pay dividends down the line by
reducing costs for future generations (or, at least, preventing them from becoming a huge burden). In the specific case of preserving natural lands from development in Florida, it
is cheaper if you take a sufficiently long view, because preserving this land (and its natural capacity to filter water for human use) could save Florida from plunking down billions upon billions on expensive, energy-intensive desalinization plants.