This isn't something impossible to do. It's something that builds over time with precedence with cases like this. Just because the law isn't 100% explicit about everything that is or isn't allowed doesn't mean it's a bad law or too vague. Being vague is a feature, because who knows how things will change tomorrow or next year or in a decade. The spirit of the law is explicit, everything else needs to be decided by voters and the justice system as the law is tested over time.

I swear, all I see is people throwing up their hands and saying "but it'd never work!" It's worked repeatedly, or nobody would've ever bothered with a constitution.

It'd be hard to pass a law that requires individual environmental improvement, but it seems pretty obvious that a law saying to ignore it is the opposite of the state constitution.