Proceed carefully with Glades

Florida environmentalists are worried that a Monday New York Times article could derail a $536 million deal to purchase 73,000 acres from U.S. Sugar as part of the effort to rescue the Everglades.

It would be better for the deal to be derailed if taxpayers are being fleeced. But that is not at all clear, despite the Times' effort to put the proposal in the worst possible light.

The acquisition has been heralded as essential to saving the Everglades. It will take polluting sugar fields out of production and provide land where water can be filtered and stored before it flows into the Everglades.

Gov. Charlie Crist considers the complex deal one of his major accomplishments. But the Times depicted it as a giveaway to U.S. Sugar that would actually delay Everglades restoration.

The newspaper describes how the construction of a reservoir included in the original cleanup plan had been suspended to allow the land acquisition.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush told the Times, "To replace projects that were under way for the possibility of a project decades from now is not a good trade."

The story's underlying theme seems to be the deal is a scam and the 16-county South Florida Water Management District, which will finance the restoration, should back away. The district is to decide today whether to extend the contract with U.S. Sugar. It is scheduled to expire March 31.

As we have said since the deal was first proposed, the transaction deserves rigorous and continued scrutiny.

But the district should extend the contract, which still would allow the state to walk away from the agreement if something is amiss.

The Times article airs many of the same objections of Florida Crystals and other sugar companies that have opposed the acquisition from the start.

But the reality is this: U.S. Sugar's agreement, whatever its shortcomings, does offer a rare opportunity to undertake a far more effective restoration effort than would be possible otherwise.

As Eric Draper, director of Florida Audubon, says, "The unassailable fact is that to save the Everglades you must have land in the Everglades Agricultural Area. You can't save the Everglades without it. And until now the sugar industry has not been willing to sell land."

It's clear that U.S. Sugar got a good asking price for the land. Perhaps it is excessive, but some appraisers found it reasonable. Moreover, an appraisal means nothing if the owner is unwilling to sell.

There are a number of proposed projects in the Everglades Agricultural Area, including an inland port, that could increase land prices and make the state's purchase price seem far more attractive.

If the state had insisted on a lower price, it might have lost the chance for comprehensive restoration altogether.

Defenders of the deal point out that stopping work on the reservoir made good sense. The facility was designed before the U.S. Sugar deal, which will allow construction of a far more extensive water-filtering system.

To plunge ahead with the reservoir would have shown bureaucratic indifference to the need for change and could have proved costly.

Supporters also say any delays that result from the acquisition are more than justified by the improvement the additional acreage will bring to the restoration plan.

It's true that not all of the U.S. Sugar land being purchased is necessary for restoration. But some may be traded later to other sugar companies for more important tracts - something critics ignore.

The project will create thousands of construction jobs, help clean Florida Bay, provide an adequate water supply for South Florida and save the Everglades. All are worthy goals.

No deal is perfect, and this one, no doubt, has flaws. State regulators and taxpayers should continue to vet and debate it. But they also should consider the prospects for the Everglades if the deal is scrapped.