TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Questions Dog U.S. Sugar Deal

ADVERTISEMENT

By LINDSAY PETERSON

The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 8, 2008

More than two months after the state announced plans to buy out U.S. Sugar, congressmen are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of information they're getting on the deal, and they're warning that the deal could do more harm than good to the Everglades region.

The state plans to give $1.7 billion to U.S. Sugar for 187,000 acres on the edge of Lake Okeechobee. Water officials would use the land to create reservoirs to store and clean the polluted lake water before channeling it into the Everglades.

Environmentalists who have worked for decades to restore the Everglades cheered the deal as a way to finally revive the dying "river of grass." But members of Congress were wary, and as time passes, their questions multiply.

"What will this cost? Will this work?" U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Palm Beach Gardens, asked at a recent community meeting in Clewiston, where U.S. Sugar is based and which stands to lose its primary source of jobs.

"We're asking the questions, but what's so frustrating is state officials negotiating the deal don't have any answers," said U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow.

"There is no master plan ... to assist in the transition of this community," he said last week. "No questions are being answered about the impact on the overall restoration plan."

Said Mahoney: "You can't put a company out of business with a half-baked plan."

Also, Reps. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, and Allen Boyd, D-Monticello, sent a four-page list of questions to state Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole about six weeks ago. Among them: "What is the precise mission of this land acquisition deal?" and "What are the long-term operation and maintenance costs of implementing this deal?"

The secretary has yet to respond. The South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Sugar are still working out the details of their deal. The environmental department is working with the water district on the congressmen's questions and will send out answers as soon as possible, said environmental department spokeswoman Dee Ann Miller.

The Issue Of Federal Money

Neither Congress nor the federal government can stop the deal, but they can withhold federal money the state is counting on to complete restoration plans under way.

The latest effort, approved by Congress in 2000, calls for the state and federal governments to share the cost of building reservoirs to catch stormwater runoff and rerouting the treated water into the Everglades.

After failing for years to deliver its part, Congress approved a major water bill last year, over President Bush's opposition. It's now in a position to spend money on the Everglades, but the U.S. Sugar deal could upset that momentum, Mahoney said at the Clewiston meeting on Aug. 28.

"If Tallahassee thinks it will do this deal and the federal government will run in with a bunch of money, whoa," Mahoney said.

The state isn't asking for federal money for the U.S. Sugar purchase. The water management district plans to raise the money using property taxes and issuing bond-like certificates. But the district likely will need federal money to carry out parts of the new restoration plan, whatever it is.

Hastings aide David Goldenberg said there's a danger that congressional opponents of Everglades funding could use this change of plans to renew and strengthen their opposition.

"People are still pushing" to provide funds, Goldenberg said. "But a lot of people, sadly, would prefer that Congress not fund Everglades restoration and this could provide them with the excuse they're looking for."

Eric Draper, of the Audubon Society of Florida, said he didn't blame members of Congress for being upset about not being part of the planning for the U.S. Sugar deal. "But money going into this is state and South Florida water management district money," he said.

"The federal government needs to concern itself with the part of the restoration they have not done," he said. It's responsible for a long overdue project to rebuild sections of Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) across the Everglades, where the highway blocks the flow of water south.

"I would hope they wouldn't hold Tamiami Trail funding hostage," Draper said. "That would be harming the Everglades in order to make a political point."

He's excited by the U.S. Sugar purchase and understands the need for secrecy while officials work out the details. In addition to the land, the deal would include the company's sugar mill, short-line railroad and citrus operation.

State water officials say they need about 100,000 acres to create reservoirs to trap and treat the water from Lake Okeechobee, which has been polluted by urban and suburban stormwater runoff from Central Florida and the farms around the lake.

'Why Are You Buying This Land?'

According to plans described when the deal was announced, the state also would need a broad pathway for the water to flow from the reservoirs south into the Everglades. But that would require a land purchase or swap with another major sugar company that owns property near the lake, Florida Crystals, owned by the Fanjul family of Palm Beach.

"The fundamental question is 'Why are you buying this land?'" Putnam said. "If you are buying it to create a flow way, then what are you going to do about Florida Crystals?"

Putnam is also asking whether this is the best way to help clean up the lake. If the state and South Florida Water Management District have nearly $2 billion to spend on restoration, he asked, is giving it to U.S. Sugar the most efficient way to use that money?

Draper thinks it is, and he said the state can achieve its goals without buying any land from Florida Crystals. It could channel water to the south through canals, he said.

"If the state has to deal with Florida Crystals, it will drive up the cost of the project," he said. "They are like the highwaymen on the bridge. ... They will ask for too much money."

Florida Crystals Vice President Gaston Cantens said the company knew little about the U.S. Sugar deal before it was announced and wants only what is fair. It recently has talked to state officials about selling or swapping property, but they haven't discussed anything substantive, agreeing to wait until the purchase negotiations with U.S. Sugar are finished.

Florida Crystals representatives have attended community meetings in the area, where concerned U.S. Sugar workers and others who depend on its jobs ask about what will become of their towns if U.S. Sugar shuts down. The preliminary deal with the state would allow the company to continue operating for six years.

"America needs agriculture today. We are going to fight to protect it," Mahoney said at the Clewiston meeting.

"What is the effect of taking tens of thousands of acres out of production?" he asked. "The people of the state of Florida have a right to know before anything is signed. I want to believe the deal can happen, but if the state wants to move forward without crossing the i's and dotting the t's, I'm going to fight it."

Reporter Lindsay Peterson can be reached at (813) 259-7834 or lpeterson@tampatrib.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT