As one of the two out-of-the-closet environmentalists here (Del Stone being the other), I've been greatly bemused by the goings on at Garcon Point.

Not that I'm not fascinated by most everything Bo Johnson's been involved with lately.

Any time I need a good laugh all I have to do is pick up a copy of the Daily News and read his defense to not reporting more than half a million of income.

The "sloppy bookkeeping" excuse was hoot enough, but then I noticed someone gave the Missus $109,635 "to resolve a tax dispute and for real estate consulting work by Bo."

Anyone worth a hundred grand for "tax expertise" might be considered smart enough to report half a million in income.

I was fortunate enough to bump into the Johnsons Wednesday as I was exiting the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola.

(Aborted jury duty again.)

Always quick to be genial, I said, "Not good, Bo."

He replied (insert Big Smile), "No problem, we'll beat it!"

I thought to myself, "You missed my point, Bo."

Time will tell if he has the "Wright" stuff or not.

But what's breaking me up about Garcon Point are the environmental aspects of "Bo's Bridge."

Let's try to forget for a moment that Bo and friends owned a bunch of property on one end of the bridge.

I'm positive that had nothing to do with his desire to put the bridge where he did.

After all, he said, "I'll not benefit financially from this project."

Who's not to believe the Speaker of the House?

No, what blows me away about the new bridge are the environmental issues.

I've pulled every story we've run about the taffy pull between environmentalists and Bo's bridge people.

A bunch of leftists - Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Florida Wildlife Federation, etc. - sued to prevent the building of the bridge.

Garcon Point is (was) home to an endangered bird, five species of orchids, and "a wide assortment of rare, endangered and threatened plants."

(Daily News, May 8, 1995.)

Well, the state Department of Environmental Protection rubber-stamped the project, and I'm sure Bo being the Speaker of the House had nothing to do with it.

Then the Army Corps of Engineers said they'd approve it after receiving "absolute assurance" wetlands there would be protected from development.

Of course, they got it.

Well guess what happened?

The state won't let the bridge open because of "environmental concerns."

Not only that, the state now wants to fine the bridge authority for $170,200 for environmental damage.

The state also wants more than a quarter of a million for restoration work.

The state says the contractor committed 17 environmental violations.

Little ones, I'm sure.

Like clogging Trout Bayou with erosion from roadwork and illegally digging a 300-foot channel to pump waste into the bay.

There's probably a moral here.

It might concern how much we should trust those who promise everything, and deliver little.

They're frequently disguised as developers, builders and politicians.

And we're frequently disguised as naïve and stupid.

Daily News columnist Bill Campbell can be reached at 863-1111, Ext. 446, or at billc@nwfdailynews.com