But five years later, the revolutionary ``polluter pays'' provision is nothing more than words in the state Constitution, and homeowners in the Everglades watershed -- from Orlando to Key West -- continue to pay most of the costs that environmentalists say Big Sugar should bear.

Today, Save Our Everglades, the environmental advocacy group that bankrolled the constitutional amendment will appear before the Florida Supreme Court in what could be a last-gasp attempt to prod reluctant state lawmakers to respond to the voters' will.

``There's a basic question: Does the Florida Constitution mean anything?'' said Charles Lee, senior vice president of Audubon of Florida, which is not a party to the suit but backed the 1996 ballot initiative. ``When people go to the trouble of putting something on the ballot and 66 percent of the people approve that polluters ought to pay to clean up this mess, should the Legislature just march on as if nothing happened?''

Though activists are encouraged that the high court has agreed to take up the case, the odds are against Save Our Everglades, the environmental group led by Islamorada activist Mary Barley. A lower court and an appeals court have already rejected the argument that the South Florida Water Management District is violating the Constitution by ignoring ``polluter pays'' and taxing homeowners according to a 1994 state law that splits the cost for Everglades cleanup between homeowners and agricultural interests.

The appeals court ruled that despite the polluter pays amendment, ``until the Legislature appeals or amends'' the 1994 law, the South Florida Water Management District has the authority under state law to levy taxes against ``nonpolluting landowners.''

Attorneys for the water district argue that the clause is meaningless without legislation that spells out who pollutes and how much they should pay.

``It's essentially up to the Legislature to determine what, if any, changes in the current funding formula need to be made,'' said John Fumero, general counsel for the water district.

That's essentially what the Supreme Court told then-Gov. Lawton Chiles when he asked the justices in 1997 for an advisory opinion on how to deal with the amendment.

``The voters expected the Legislature to enact supplementary legislation to make it effective,'' the justices told Chiles.

But legislators -- under Chiles and now under Gov. Jeb Bush -- have largely ignored the amendment.

Bills that would have set up a formula to make polluters pay were introduced in the 1998 legislative session. They died in committee and no lawmaker since has tried again. Lee blames the Florida sugar industry and its ``juggernaut of lobbyists'' and campaign cash, but Sen. Walter ``Skip'' Campbell, a Tamarac Democrat who tried in 1998 to bill polluters, said there are other polluting culprits -- from cattle farmers to developers -- who feared they'd be hit with a portion of the bill.

``A lot of these people told me they would never let it get through,'' Campbell said of his bill. ``I'd love to see it happen, because I really do think those responsible should pay, but the question is does the Legislature have the political guts to do something that's going to cost money out of the special interests?''

Former House Speaker John Thrasher, who presided over the lower chamber in 1999-2000, calls those charges ``predictable'' and notes that lawmakers were focused on a larger picture: passing a bill that funds an $8 billion federal-state effort to restore the Everglades to its former splendor.

``We did what I think was directly beneficial to the Everglades,'' Thrasher said. ``We needed to go in, come up with the money and we did. That's a lot more productive than fighting over the polluter issue.''

University of Florida law professor Joseph Little said environmentalists may regret seeking the court's intervention if the justices rule the tax is unconstitutional and kill it. That's because the court would have little ability to force the Legislature to tax the industry further to make up for the loss in revenue.

``The tax wouldn't be levied and the Legislature would be left to decide whether it should replace it,'' Little said.

The polluter pays provision was a companion to a penny-per-pound sugar tax that was defeated at the polls. Little, who at the time represented groups opposed to both measures, said the polluter pays provision might have worked better with the sugar tax.

``When that failed all the stuff around it should have been thrown away,'' Little said.

The water district's Fumero notes lawmakers would have a difficult task dividing up responsibility because there is ``no definitive science or research'' to figure out a given entity's pollution contribution.

Under the 1994 law that tried to assess costs to build water-filtering marshes to clean the Everglades, homeowners pay a property tax -- about $30 million a year. Agricultural entities are taxed an annual ``agriculture privilege tax,'' about $25 an acre, but can earn credit for reducing phosphorus from fertilizer-laden water. The tax adds up to between $11 million to $15 million a year depending on the credits earned.