If you have problems trying to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the Daily Digest of Eco-Voice, Inc., please send an e-mail to PaulHolmes@eco-voice.org.
The public is encouraged to Add New Content to the calendar and forums.
Opinion: Eric Buermann: U.S. Sugar deal is key to Everglades restoration
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201004060200/OPINION05/4060306
OPINION: U.S. Sugar deal is key to Everglades restoration
ERIC BUERMANN • MY VIEW • APRIL 6, 2010
TALLAHASSEE.COM
On Wednesday, the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments as it reviews a lower court's approval of the financing for the South Florida Water Management District's purchase of U.S. Sugar Corp. lands for Everglades restoration.
Last year, the lower court properly and thoughtfully ruled that the SFWMD met its legal requirements for issuing its financing, but special interests, mainly U.S. Sugar's longtime rival in the competitive sugar industry, appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Citizens following the U.S. Sugar acquisition have witnessed these special interests — and their lobbyists in Tallahassee — attempting to turn what is usually a routine legal review into a stage for distorting the facts surrounding the acquisition's purpose and terms. These opponents have tried to foster doubt about the public benefit from the lands and even personally disparaged those who champion the acquisition as part of Everglades restoration. It is ironic that the same thirst for profits that contributed to pollution of the Everglades is now obstructing restoration of the Everglades. Fortunately, none of these detractors, nor their well-publicized spin, will distract the court from its methodical legal review and, hopefully, will not fool the public that, for the large part, supports the purchase.
Simply put, the SFWMD will eventually have to buy more land for true restoration of the Everglades and its watersheds, whether it is from U.S. Sugar or another seller. The district is under increasing pressure from courts and federal regulators to add more storage and treatment areas beyond those originally contemplated in the state-federal Everglades restoration program.
Regrettably, the Herbert Hoover Dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee is in a weakened condition, preventing adequate water storage in the lake itself due to flood concerns. When a hurricane, tropical storm or even seasonal rain impacts South Florida, water must be released from the lake, mainly down its two estuaries to the ocean. There is no place to store it. These releases can cause tremendous damage to the environment, economies and quality of life along our coasts, and beyond.
Before the Everglades were drained to now only 40 percent of their original size, water overflowed the lake's southern rim, and the Everglades provided that storage. Indeed, if such land as U.S. Sugar's had been available when the current environmental restoration program was designed some 10 years ago, it would have been a showcase feature in lieu of certain existing components for providing storage and treatment.
The 73,000-acre acquisition under review is but the first phase of the 180,000-acre U.S. Sugar purchase to address these problems for South Florida. Water storage of this magnitude will significantly reduce freshwater releases into coastal estuaries and vastly improve water flow into the Everglades. Let's not forget that not only the environment but our water supply is at stake: South Florida, lacking mountains whose snowcaps melt into reservoirs, depends on rainwater flowing through the Everglades to recharge its underground aquifers.
How do we plan to use most of the initial 73,000 acres?
· 25,000 acres directly south of Lake Okeechobee for water storage and treatment.
· 20,000 acres for water treatment wetlands to improve water quality in an area south of the lake, where farm runoff pollution has been historically high.
· 10,000 acres to expand existing water treatment areas feeding the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
· 10,000 acres near Lake Hicpochee to store and treat water, improving water quality flowing into the Caloosahatchee Estuary.
· 3,500 acres to store and treat water, significantly reducing the harmful effects of back-pumping polluted agricultural runoff into Lake Okeechobee.
To achieve these goals, a collaborative, public planning process is under way to identify specific projects for the acquisition lands, and there is no shortage of options. Stakeholders and citizens have been working with SFWMD engineers and scientists to evaluate all viable restoration proposals that an unprecedented 73,000 acres have to offer. It goes without saying that the first step is to buy them.
- Forums:
- Type:
Support Eco-Voice.org
A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE (800-435-7352) WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.'' REGISTRATION# CH31394.
Checks to support Eco-Voice can be sent to Post Office Box 50161, Fort Myers, Fl 33994. 501c3 status with the IRS is in process.

George H. Wedgworth: U.S. Sugar land not needed for
George H. Wedgworth is president and CEO of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida.
George H. Wedgworth: U.S. Sugar land buy costly, not needed for Everglades restoration
George H. Wedgworth
Special to news-press.com
http://www.news-press.com/article/20100608/OPINION/100607051/1015/opinion/George-H.-Wedgworth--U.S.-Sugar-land-buy-costly--not-needed-for-Everglades-restoration
Commissioner Ray Judah’s guest opinion entitled “U.S. Sugar acquisition only option for our estuary and the Everglades,” May 25, begs for an honest response.
U.S. Sugar understands the problems in the system and what the solutions are, but gave up working collaboratively with all parties in exchange for a big payday.
Before U.S. Sugar Corp. struck a taxpayer-funded deal with Gov. Charlie Crist to buy them out, they were on record time and time again supporting vital Everglades restoration projects, including the state’s Acceler8 effort, focusing on cleaning polluted water north of Lake Okeechobee and building storage reservoirs to benefit the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries (specifically the C-43 and C-44 reservoir projects).
Now, U.S. Sugar and critics of agriculture have changed their tune and have abandoned the science behind Everglades restoration in favor of a massive tax-funded sale and leaseback deal that will only mean millions to U.S. Sugar’s bottom line.
U.S. Sugar Senior Vice President and former SFWMD Governing Board member Bubba Wade wrote a March 26, 2006, guest column in the Fort Pierce Tribune stating, “I can assure you that storing water in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) will not solve the problems with Lake Okeechobee or prevent massive discharges to the estuaries during wet years. Technical data from the SFWMD indicates that 97 percent of the water flow comes from the northern half of the Lake Okeechobee watershed...
The Lake and estuary problems are not caused south of the Lake and cannot be fixed by merely relocating polluted Lake Okeechobee water there... Gov. Jeb Bush committed the state to begin building more than $1 billion worth of projects, igniting the state’s half of the state-federal Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
The SFWMD has already broken ground on many of these Acceler8 projects which place additional storage north, south, east and west. In addition, the Lake Okeechobee Estuary Recovery Plan will focus on storing and cleaning water north of the lake. Together these initiatives will continue to improve the system from top to bottom.”
We fully support completing the construction on the three storage reservoirs where the SFWMD already owns the land, construction and pilot projects are under way and conditional federal authorization has already been obtained. Why trade projects that were under way for an opportunity to acquire land encumbered with long term leases, “maxing out the SFWMD’s credit card” with no way of funding the construction of features thus assuring that no real relief for the Everglades or estuaries is in sight for a decade or more?
All stakeholders should embrace science-driven restoration using the assets that the SFWMD already owns and completing projects that will provide meaningful results for the Everglades and estuaries.
Pitting stakeholders against each other isn’t productive in protecting the south Florida ecosystem.
Let’s stop the rhetoric and get back to producing results.
1. OPINION: Engelhardt: Is U.S. Sugar citrus land worthless? -
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/columnists/engelhardt-is-u-s-sugar-citrus-land-worthless-565118.html
OPINION: Engelhardt: Is U.S. Sugar citrus land worthless?
Palm Beach Post
By JOEL ENGELHARDT
Updated: 9:42 a.m. Thursday, April 15, 2010
Posted: 6:08 p.m. Wednesday, April 14, 2010
In 2008, two of the world's largest citrus growers made written offers to buy U.S. Sugar's citrus groves. They made the offers to the South Florida Water Management District because the district would own the groves, all in Hendry County, as part of its then-$1.75 billion buyout of U.S. Sugar.
The citrus groves, say critics of a deal now reduced to $536 million, are ill-matched losers dumped on the district by U.S. Sugar as the price of parting with its more valuable sugar cane land. In one court briefing, Florida Crystals, an opponent of the deal, refers to the 32,500 acres of citrus groves as "so useless that it is let rent-free."
It's not a hard argument to buy. Who would want to own citrus groves in a place, where, if hurricanes, frosts and overseas competition don't wipe you out, citrus diseases like greening and canker will?
Yet the district's recently opened files of once-confidential documents reveal that Pepsico, owner of Tropicana, and Brazilian operator Cutrale Citrus, which bought Minute Maid's Florida processing plants in 1996, expressed interest in buying the citrus groves, processing facilities and equipment. In its nonbinding October 2008 letter, Cutrale offered to pay between $8,000 and $12,000 an acre for any citrus land the district did not want for Everglades restoration projects. The district is paying $5,700 per acre.
Pepsico, which made its offer in tandem with Texas-based King Ranch, focused its written offer on the 17,700-acre Southern Gardens Citrus Groves. "Our preliminary valuation," the companies wrote in September 2008, "is in the range of $170 million to $220 million." The district is paying $180 million for three groves, including Southern Gardens, on 32,500 acres. U.S. Sugar is retaining the equipment and processing facilities.
Despite what detractors maintain about the state of Florida citrus, the letters indicate a market for citrus land. Again, despite detractors who say that the district has no need for the land, the district contends that the need is so great that it's not planning to sell most of the land. Just one grove, Devil's Garden — the smallest, at 5,400 acres, and the one least harmed by disease — is the only one that doesn't fit into existing restoration plans. For instance, Southern Gardens is next to a stormwater treatment marsh that the district is planning to enlarge.
The supposed sweetheart lease that allows U.S. Sugar to continue farming the land at no cost won't last, district officials maintain. The lease benefits the district, they say, by ensuring that the land continues to be properly managed, at no cost to the public. Within a year of buying the land, the district can evict U.S. Sugar and hold an auction to lease the land to the highest bidder. That way, the district can cut a land-lease deal outside the confines of the larger and more difficult U.S. Sugar price negotiations. The letters, along with verbal offers district officials say they continue to receive, indicate that the market for Florida citrus endures.
Leasing that land buys the district time to design projects to expand stormwater treatment systems to help polluted estuaries on Florida's west coast. The projects, said district Deputy Executive Director Ken Ammon, are needed whether the district buys U.S. Sugar's land or not. If Devil's Garden alone among the three groves proves to be unneeded, it could be sold to the highest bidder. "If we were buying this land strictly for orange production," Mr. Ammon said, "its not something we would pursue. But we have specific projects."
To summarize, the district needs the citrus land. What it doesn't need, it can lease immediately or perhaps sell. Cutrale's letter indicates that the district is not overpaying but actually is paying fair value. Opponents of the U.S. Sugar deal continue to call the citrus lands useless. It's an easy criticism to make, and an even easier one to accept, as long as you don't let the facts get in the way.
Joel Engelhardt is an editorial writer for The Palm Beach Post. His e-mail address is joel_engelhardt@pbpost.com
Post new comment