What Would the Romans Think of Florida’s Development? Balancing Land Use and the Environment Across 2,000 Years
By Finnigan Mariani '30
Florida’s population growth has rapidly intensified over the past decade, exacerbating pressures for Florida lawmakers to reassess commercial, housing, and environmental regulation policies. Growing by 8.9% between 2020 and 2025, the state reached approximately 23.46 million residents, with projections indicating that in 2050, Florida’s population will reach approximately 28.25 million. (1) As Florida continues to climb the rankings of the most populated states in the country, the state faces a profoundly familiar legal problem: how can its land-use laws balance environmental preservation amidst the growing demands for the development of private property? Analyzing Roman law alongside Florida’s illustrates that, despite changing underlying legal purposes and mechanisms, both systems confront the challenge of reconciling individual property rights with the broader consequences of land use.
The tension between property rights and the public interest predates both Florida and the United States. More than two thousand years ago, Roman society grappled with these responsibilities, weighing the costs of increased urbanization, agricultural development, and resettlement patterns that actively shaped and influenced the landscapes around them. Roman law dictates that certain protection policies be considered for bodies of water, policies that are remarkably similar to our own; drawing from assessments made by the praetor—a magistrate who “had broad authority in cases of equity” (2)—the “riparian lands” should be protected, and “unauthorized tapping by watercourses” was strictly prohibited. (3) In the Digest (43.13.1), the jurist Ulpian recounts how a praetor prohibited construction in and around public rivers if it would alter the river’s course. (4) The rule sought to prevent changes in water flow that could harm neighboring landowners, highlighting how Roman law restricted certain activities for the protection of broader interests. Considering land, the Codex Justinianus (11.78.2) also prohibited the unauthorized cutting of cypress trees in the sacred grove of Daphne at Antioch, imposing a penalty of five pounds of gold for violations. (5) Roman law offers a historical perspective on this enduring legal problem: although Roman regulations governing land and natural resources prioritized public welfare rather than environmental preservation itself, they demonstrate how societies have consistently balanced the consequences of land development beyond the interests of individual property owners.
“We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life.” ~ Pliny the Elder
Ravenna—as well as Broader Roman laws
Ravenna, the capital of the 5th-century Roman Empire, marks an important example for analyzing the impact that the Romans had on natural landscapes. Being “lagoon-like” and full of “marshy terrain” (6), Ravenna required significant human alterations to become hospitable. In 402 CE, when the imperial court relocated from Milan to Ravenna, the city underwent a massive transformation: new waterways, roads, and infrastructure were built because of rapid urbanization and the new imperial presence.
Roman development and the “gradual expansion” of Ravenna “along natural, but also artificial waterways” and “canals” depended on the changing of natural resources to better accommodate human life. (7) Whether it be through draining wetlands or rerouting water sources, the city’s conception hinged upon extensive alteration of wetlands and waterways.
Unlike modern environmental law, which explicitly considers the broader environmental consequences of land development, the Romans weighed land use through public welfare, economic activity, and the protection of property rights. While these regulations could limit how individuals used land and natural resources, they did not constitute a unified system of environmental preservation, likening their environmental laws to more modern examples of property and economic laws. This distinction provides a useful framework for examining Florida’s development: when altering a landscape, how should laws balance individual property owners against environmental consequences and broader public interests?
Ravenna helps us understand a real example, but analyzing the broader contexts of Roman law allows us to see more clearly into this issue. For example, Roman laws restricting the “rights of the owner of an agricultural land” and compelling an individual “to cultivate the land in the proper way” came more from a place of public benefit rather than a concern about the environment. (8) For example, the Digest (7.1.13.4) discusses the responsibility of a usufructuary—someone who had the temporary right to use land without holding ownership—to use and cultivate land properly. (9) This practice was primarily focused on the responsible use and preservation of property, rather than environmental protection as a separate legal objective. This attitude of public wellbeing extended even onto woodlands, where lessees had to maintain “proper guarding of the forest” (10). Even “cutting down another person’s trees or vine-stocks became a public crime” (11), but not the actual act of developing one’s own land, or public lands—referred to at the time as ager publicus (12)—in the interest of the state. Taken together, these rules suggest that Roman law regulated land primarily through the responsibilities of ownership and the protection of property rights, rather than a general desire to preserve the natural environment. Hence, Ravenna’s physical transformation and changes to natural landscapes were not inherently objectionable; their legitimacy depended more on who controlled the land, how it was used, and whether the relevant legal obligations were respected.
Even air purity stands out as an example: the Roman legal system punished the emission of smoke, citing that it could kill “another’s bees” (13). Thus, it is important to understand that Roman laws affecting natural resources were fundamentally different in purpose from modern environmental laws. The Romans did not have an empire-wide organization like the Environmental Protection Agency; instead, they had regulations that primarily preserved the functioning of the government and economy rather than the environment itself.
Florida Law and its Applications
Florida’s legal framework is vastly different from that of the Romans: laws are more systematically centered around expressed environmental protection, incorporating similar Roman considerations into a comprehensive legal framework. The state’s Community Planning Act emphasizes this protection by encouraging sustainable development alongside public safety by safeguarding natural resources and private property rights by requiring communities to set a foundation for growth that considers local ecosystems (14). Rather than merely individually regulating certain rules accompanying land development as did the Romans, Florida effectively sets both a general outline for land-use planning, as well as individual laws to preserve the state’s rich ecosystems.
Florida Statute § 163.3161 establishes the primary goal of the Community Planning Act: local communities ought to manage future development alongside the environment. The statute encourages the use of natural resources and landscapes to better serve the public interest but makes clear that communities must consider general welfare and local ecosystems in their decision-making. Environmental protection isn’t the only focus of these statutes; Section 163.3161 requires governments to respect constitutionally protected property rights, requiring relief to landowners for any government action that unlawfully utilizes a person’s land. Similarly to Romans, land-use regulation must consider the interests of private owners; however, they differ as development must consider consequences on local ecosystems.
Section 163.3202 explains how to turn community plans into enforceable rules that “ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands” (15). Municipalities and counties are required to adopt development policies adhering to their plans, with these regulations effectively meeting concerns for public well-being, as well as the protection of the environment. The relationship between the two statutes is hard to overstate: comprehensive plans outline a community’s future growth, while land-development regulations translate those plans into requirements affecting development proposals.
Florida’s planning framework is enhanced by environmental resource permitting under Part IV of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes (16). Certain land-alteration activities affecting wetlands and water resources require environmental resource permits that allow regulators to evaluate potential environmental effects of development before construction starts. Private ownership also does not automatically grant individuals unrestricted authority to alter land without regard to its ecological consequences, illustrating that Florida maintains an express commitment to environmental regulation, extending to the evaluation of individual development projects.
Regulation is not as unlimited as it was for the Romans: modern Florida land-use regulation operates within constitutional limitations that did not exist in the same form under Roman law. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District stands out for emboldening modern constitutional protections against uncompensated takings (17). When Koontz sought to develop his property and offered to grant a conservation easement to mitigate the environmental effects of his proposal, the St. Johns River Water Management District said no. They would only approve development if he reduced the project and granted a larger easement or paid for improvements to wetlands owned by the District several miles away. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Koontz, arguing that a condition requiring an owner to surrender property or provide certain benefits must have a connection to the effects of the proposed development and be roughly proportional to those effects. The case therefore demonstrates that environmental preservation and private property rights are interests that operate within a legal framework defining both governmental authority and its limits.
Conclusion and Why This Matters
The Romans could not have predicted Florida’s unique circumstances surrounding growth, let alone even fathom the western world, but their institutions do highlight a commonality throughout human history: land development and environmental considerations require careful regulations that consider broader implications about the safety of the public and their livelihoods. While not protectionary in the modern understanding of environmental law, Roman regulations show us that land development could produce consequences extending beyond an individual owner, something Florida’s legal system also does, but in a tremendously different way.
The Roman comparison illustrates that the law should determine when the broader consequences of development justify restricting an individual’s use of property. Effective land-use regulation must balance environmental and public consequences while ensuring that private property limitations remain legally justified. Recognizing the public consequences of land use is only the first step: the law must also establish clear standards for determining when development should be restricted and how the burdens of conservation should be distributed between the public and individual landowners.
As Florida continues to grow, the Roman experience teaches us that development must account for its effects on the surrounding community and landscape. Florida should therefore strengthen its long-term comprehensive planning and environmental review whilst ensuring that conservation requirements are transparent and in accordance with property rights. Roman law shows us that land-use law must evolve alongside society’s needs; by pulling from the Romans’ recognition of land as a matter of public concern alongside modern interpretations of environmental protections and constitutional safeguards, Florida can pursue development that serves present needs without unnecessarily sacrificing the landscapes and resources on which future generations will depend.
Endnotes
U.S. Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Florida,” 2025, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/RHI825225.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “praetor,” accessed September 22, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/praetor.
Pál Sáry, “Water Law Rules in Ancient Rome,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Law 14, no. 26 (2019): 222, https://doi.org/10.21029/JAEL.2019.26.219.
Digest of Justinian 43.13.1 (Ulpian), in “Digest Book 43,” Exilian Academy: Roman Law, accessed October 12, 2026, https://www.exilian.co.uk/academy/romanlaw/dig43.php.
Codex Justinianus 11.78.2, trans. S. P. Scott, in “The Code of Justinian: Book 11,” The Roman Law Library, Université Grenoble Alpes, accessed October 12, 2026, https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/CJ11_Scott.gr.html.
Helena Tůmová and Enrico Cirelli, “Ravenna Surrounded by Waters: Landscape Changes and Urban Transformations in Late Antiquity,” Post-Classical Archaeologies 14 (2024): 121–44, https://doi.org/10.69106/pca202407.
Tůmová and Cirelli, “Ravenna Surrounded by Waters.”
Pál Sáry, “The Legal Protection of Environment in Ancient Rome,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Law 15, no. 29 (2020): 200, https://doi.org/10.21029/JAEL.2020.29.199.
Digest of Justinian 7.1.13.4 (Ulpian), in “Digesta: Liber VII,” ReadAncientTexts.com, accessed October 12, 2026, https://readancienttexts.com/justinian/digesta/7.
Sáry, “Legal Protection of Environment,” 201.
Sáry, “Legal Protection of Environment,” 202.
Andrew Stephenson, Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 9th ser., nos. 7–8 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1891), chap. 1, sec. 3, Project Gutenberg, accessed September 22, 2026, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/12638/12638-h/12638-h.htm.
Sáry, “Legal Protection of Environment,” 204.
Fla. Stat. § 163.3161 (2026), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3161.html.
Fla. Stat. § 163.3202(2)(e) (2026), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3202.html.
Fla. Stat. ch. 373, pt. IV (2026), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0373/0373.html.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/595/.
Comments