Five years ago, Florida voters went to the polls and overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment aimed at requiring agricultural interests to pay more to clean up the Everglades.

But state lawmakers have failed to introduce legislation that the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1997 was necessary to implement the program.

Instead, regional water management officials have levied an across-the-board tax on property owners throughout the region's water management district. The tax now raises $32 million a year, targeted specifically for pollution abatement.

Environmentalists have said the amendment explicitly requires payment from those who pollute within the region known as the Everglades Agricultural Area -- a region dominated by sugar farms and located just south of Lake Okeechobee.

In oral arguments before the seven-member high court on Tuesday, attorney Jon Mills said, The constitution ``says that if you are going to tax for this purpose, this is the only way to do it. You have to live in the EAA and you have to pollute.''

Mills, who represented a coalition of environmental groups before the court, argued that the ``polluter pays'' tax should be struck down. ``We do not live in the EAA and we do not pollute. You cannot tax us,'' Mills said during the 40 minutes of oral arguments.

So far, two lower courts disagreed and dismissed the environmentalists' case saying there was no inconsistency between the ``polluter pays'' tax and the 1994 Everglades Forever Act. That state law levied a tax on sugar producers and set forth requirements for reducing the amount of pollutant discharge.

Mark Nettleton, attorney for the South Florida Water Management District, cited a 1997 Florida Supreme Court opinion in his argument before the court. Nettleton said the ``polluter pays'' tax, as applied, was considered valid in 1997 and nothing has changed since that time.

``There is no inconsistency between those provisions,'' Nettleton said. ``Under (state) rule, if it is not inconsistent, it remains in effect until repealed or modified by the legislature.''

Judy Sanchez, spokeswoman for U.S. Sugar Corp., said more than 6 million people live in south Florida and are all partially responsible for the pollution present in the region.

``When you look at how complex the (eco)system is, to say in a simplistic manner that the sugar farmers should be responsible for everything doesn't hold up under scrutiny,'' Sanchez said.

Environmentalists claim the sugar industry, a major campaign contributor, has bottled up the legislation required to implement the constitutional amendment.

``The question is simple: Does Florida's constitution mean anything?'' asked Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society. ''When the people speak by a vote of 68 percent that the polluters should pay 100 percent, how long will the legislature trundle on?''

The court did not issue a ruling on the ``polluter pays'' case on Tuesday. A decision could be months away.