Showing posts sorted by relevance for query eminent domain. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query eminent domain. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Eminent Domain And Big Sugar: Time to Get Started ... by gimleteye


Back in March, I wrote about eminent domain for Huffington Post: "Oligarchs In Florida: How An “Arab Spring” Could Make Big Sugar Even Wealthier But Save The State". The case for eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area is on the table in Florida, thanks to Florida Senator Bill Nelson who recently endorsed action by federal agencies to initiate eminent domain proceedings, starting with a rigorous analysis to identify the most suitably located lands in sugarcane production to convert to water storage and treatment marshes for the critical public purpose of relieving Florida's estuaries and bays from their role as Big Sugar's sacrifice zones.

The EAA plus surrounding public lands including Everglades National Park comprise a total of about 2 million acres — historically, natural wetlands — but Big Sugar’s hammerlock on water management infrastructure and flood control practices ensure that the entire state dances to its tune.

Big Sugar gets what it wants, when it wants it. This turns into a problem during times of drought and flood; more the norm than the exception in a rapidly changing world where the state’s population growth collides with the impacts of climate change.

The chorus is rising: buy Big Sugar lands, send clean, fresh water south. What this means is taking about 100,000 acres out of sugarcane production to the purpose of storage and cleansing marshes so that Lake Okeechobee stormwater runoff doesn’t destroy property values, tourism-dependent businesses, and natural resources around the southern rim of the state.

The refusals from Big Sugar (“We are just ordinary people and good citizens who care” and “we’ve already done our fair share”) cannot stand up to fact and science.

For Huffington Post, Jane Kleeb takes up the eminent domain theme: "Keystone XL and Eminent Domain Embody the Republicans' Crisis of Identity."

The Republican Party is facing a serious crisis of identity. On the one hand, they stand up for property rights in their Platform, which would be music to the ears of rural voters and urban folks on the front line of pipeline fights if the GOP were not also Keystone XL’s biggest cheerleader. Not only do they praise the foreign pipeline in their Platform, but also using it as a proxy for their energy policy: drill anywhere and everywhere, no matter the risk.

The Republicans’ stance on ending eminent domain abuse while supporting the Keystone XL pipeline is the perfect case study of how the GOP can’t seem to find its identity.

The Republican Platform says, “The Framers of our government knew, from history and experience, that when private property is not secure, freedom is at risk.” Then, later in the Platform document, they go on to say that they support the Keystone XL pipeline and the only reason the pipeline was rejected was President Obama caving to “environmental extremists” clealry ignoring the threat the pipeline posed to landowners’ property rights along its route.

There is no question environmentalists helped stop the pipeline, but it was the unlikely alliance of climate advocates, farmers, ranchers, and Native communities who were on the front lines of the fight. Landowners went to court battling eminent domain, which ultimately was a huge factor in stopping the risky pipeline.

In fact, eminent domain has a routine, not an exceptional, place in U.S. legislative and judicial systems. When utilities need right of ways or local governments need roadway expansions, eminent domain is a powerful tool. It is a tool that also gives private property owners a means to be equitably compensated for loss of land.

The central question about eminent domain is whether it serves an important public purpose. For the fossil fuel industries, driving the Keystone pipeline through eminent domain, was a very important purpose. But it was a narrow purpose for industrial (and polluting) profits. On the other side of the ledger, it is very clear that using eminent domain to perpetuate the risks of climate change made the Keystone XL a very damaging project to the public interest.

Using eminent domain to negotiate conversion of Big Sugar lands into storage and cleansing marshes promotes another public choice. The domination of this polluting industry (involving a crop that benefits from the most egregious form of corporate welfare and subsidies) is already, in situ, a bad decision. Algae blooms now surrounding the southern half of the Florida peninsula demonstrate what a poor decision it has been to turn over water management to users like Big Sugar.

Eminent domain in South Florida, unlike Keystone XL, advances and does not subtract from the public choice do support clean water, coastal real estate values, and a vibrant tourism-based economy.

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

On Eminent Domain, Trump is right, Bush and Rubio are wrong: just follow the political money in Florida to know why ... by gimleteye

In the final GOP debate before the NH primary, Jeb Bush attacked Donald Trump for his support of eminent domain, which allows governments to seize private lands for projects for the public good. A day later, Marco Rubio repeated Bush's complaint.
Interesting, because as attention turns past New Hampshire, Trump could use eminent domain against Bush and Rubio in Florida.

Right now, coastal residents -- in mostly Republican areas of the state -- are up in arms, furious that the value of coastal real estate worth billions is being trashed because Big Sugar has blocked the buyout by the state of lands adequate to the purpose of storing and cleansing its pollution.

It is the state's worst kept secret: Big Sugar counts on elected officials to continue shifting most of the cleanup costs away from its profit margin and to taxpayers and property owners on both Florida coasts.

Historic rainfalls -- as much as five times the average -- in the region have caused the state's liquid heart, Lake Okeechobee, to rise so fast and so high that the state and US Army Corps of Engineers have had to resort to the formula that benefits Big Sugar first and foremost by releasing hundreds of billions of heavily polluted water into Florida's estuaries and rivers as an escape valve.

There is a solution, and it is exactly what Trump supports in principle: eminent domain to provide desperately needed surface water storage and trap this excessive rainfall.
Solving the impasse both north and south of Lake Okeechobee could have been resolved decades ago through eminent domain. US Sugar in 2008 actually entered into a deal to sell its lands, but its competitor -- the billionaire Fanjuls -- hold key pieces of property and have been steadfast in their refusal to sell. In fact, the Fanjuls threw their complete support to Marco Rubio in his single victory to win a US Senate seat in 2010 because his opponent, Charlie Crist, had the temerity of starting the state down the road of buying sugar lands for flood control and cleansing marsh purposes.

Eminent domain is a frequent target of criticism from conservative and anti-government groups. Both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio toed Big Sugar's line: don't use eminent domain under any circumstance to solve "environmental" problems like the Everglades. Of course it is not just the Everglades that need help: there is the Miccosukee Tribe and property owners along the St. Lucie, the Indian River, the Caloosahatchee and any business owner whose livelihood depends on tourism.

Archival photo of water release from the Lake.
Eminent domain is controversial in Florida, thanks to the influence of major landowners like Big Sugar, dairy farmers, and land speculators. Florida’s Constitution recognizes a landowner should not be put in a worse position after a condemnation than before. Full compensation, as the Constitution requires, includes attorneys fees.

So, no crocodile tears are due if elected officials decided to use eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

Bush said in the debate, "What Donald Trump did was use eminent domain to try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City. That is not public purpose. That is downright wrong."

Here is what is downright wrong: that Jeb Bush as governor of Florida was too afraid of Big Sugar to do anything to alleviate the conditions that have rematerialized this winter in Lake Okeechobee watersheds and the disastrous disposal of hundreds of billions of gallons of polluted farm runoff into the St. Lucie River, Indian River and Caloosahatchee. Marco Rubio, when asked, points to his experience in the Florida legislature defending property rights. Neither will admit that their refusal to entertain the necessity of fixing the pollution crisis in Florida through eminent domain has cost taxpayers and the environment billions of dollars already.

Trump said that eminent domain was “a good thing” and was necessary to building roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. “Certainly, it’s a necessity for our country." He was right. He added that the GOP supporters of Keystone Pipeline understand perfectly well that the pipeline they support could never be built without eminent domain.

As the GOP campaign focus turns to Florida, Trump should emphasize to voters the value of eminent domain and especially how both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio will not bite the sugary hand that feeds their ambition.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Water, Florida, and the Tyranny Of Big Sugar ... by gimleteye

More than 40 Islamorada fishing guides in 20 knot wind in the middle of tarpon season came together to spell out HELP to send water south. Photo from Little Basin behind Worldwide Sportsman in Islamorada in the midst of an algae bloom.
This week, the Florida Senate takes up a bill that emerged from the Senate Appropriations Committee called SB 10, the Everglades Bill. It is a big bill that scoops up the highly contentious issue of spending billions of dollars raised through a citizens' referendum in 2014 allocating a portion of the documentary tax stamp to purchasing environmentally sensitive lands.

Senate President Joe Negron made this bill one of his top legislative priorities, after highly polluted water from Lake Okeechobee contaminated Florida's east and west coast outlets in the winter of 2015/2016. In Florida, winter is normally dry season. That year, historic rainfall laid bare the problem of Florida's water infrastructure: it is organized primarily to benefit Florida's wealthiest campaign contributors. Big Sugar.

Big Sugar farms on approximately 700,000 acres in the southern crescent below Lake Okeechobee. The crop, sugar, and its seasonal water demands have always commanded priority of attention by policy makers and legislators.

Last week Florida Keys fishing guides assembled their skiffs in Florida Bay, spelling the word for an aerial photograph: "Help!". The bay, since the 1980s, has endured repetitive algae blooms that stripped biodiversity from hundreds of square miles from pristine wilderness, leaving behind ghostly scenes reminiscent of chemical warfare. In this case, the warfare is waged far upstream; through the Everglades, which normally would feed Florida Bay fresh, clean water in the right volume and the right time of year, straight up to the big sugar farms that take fresh water and fill it with chemicals that run off the fields as a form of state-authorized pollution.

The guides are normally a cranky lot, disinclined to shooting from the hip. The promise of new legislation moving through Tallahassee that could solve the serial insults delivered to Florida Bay by polluted water and protect their livelihoods -- the foundation of a $500 million contribution to the Keys economy -- brought them together.

It is no mystery why Florida Bay is ailing. Nothing can live except scavenger species in water turned to shit by pollution.

Florida's water bosses serve elected officials channelized by the money influence wielded by Big Sugar billionaires a single aim: keep those 700,000 acres of sugar farms south of Lake Okeechobee from getting too wet when it pours or too dry when the rest of the southern half of the state is parched. Even Florida's millions of taxpayers and visitors and voters are subservient to this mission: keep the money flowing no matter the consequences.

Today there are more than 100 highly paid lobbyists representing Big Sugar trolling the halls and barrooms of the state capitol with simple marching orders: undermine and erode a critical bill, supported by the Republican president of the state senate, Joe Negron, that might stop the rampant pollution of east and west coast beaches and estuaries, a tourism-dependent economy, the Everglades and Florida Bay. The tyranny of unfairness rolls on like a massive locomotive.

This week in Tallahassee, Big Sugar is supporting a version of the Everglades bill by Senator Negron because it includes provisions that lock down its prerogatives to dominate, forever, water infrastructure necessary to its profits. For example, without any vetting in public where environmentalists might have the chance to weigh in through testimony -- Big Sugar inserted an amendment that locks down a prohibition by state government from ever "taking" land from unwilling sellers in case this next decadal tranche of water "restoration" projects fails. Eminent domain is a legal, legitimate way for government to advance important infrastructure projects. It also provides for compensating property owners. Although eminent domain is rarely used, it is a necessary and important tool to balance the benefits to taxpayers and to private property owners.

That's not the only problem in the bill. There are process issues embedded in language that could fail to deliver what the public expects with new reservoirs and storage treatment marshes necessary to prevent the same problem that created the 2015/2016 water emergency in Florida's coastal estuaries and the ongoing death by a thousand cuts in Florida Bay and the Everglades.

No Florida Bay fishing guide leaves the dock in the morning with a guarantee of catching fish. Every sugar farmer in Florida is guaranteed a profit the instant the sun rises at dawn.

That's where the inequity starts. Not where it ends.

Big Sugar isn't interested in equity. It is interested in domination. That's why its lobbyists and lawyers get paid the big bucks. In the current bill is also a provision to create new water law in Florida, a kind of Trojan Horse, through which a public resource -- rainfall -- can be converted to private profit. So, the ban against eminent domain is only one of the trap doors in the current Everglades bill by Senator Joe Negron.

Bullsugar found another one: "We are deeply concerned that at the 11th hour under intense pressure from the sugar industry, legislators shrunk the reservoir (to be created with billions of public dollars) by 34%. CERP calls for 360,000 acre feet of storage south of the lake. We've been short changing the estuaries and the Everglades for far too long - when did the science change?" Talk about swamps worth draining.

Florida invented the cliche: the environment and the economy must be balanced. Cliches are sometimes true, but that is not the case here. What is emerging in this bill is a tyranny of misdirection.

Let's end with this thought: there are many others in addition to Florida Keys fishing guides who need "help"now.

The threat or outright loss of jobs in Stuart, in Lake Worth, in Naples or Islamorada is also a "taking". These losses aren't imaginary fictions drummed up by right wing foundations funded by big polluters and billionaires. Through massive pollution in Florida's estuaries, rivers and bays (in primarily Republican districts) eminent domain has been imposed like a suffocating blanket over life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's not some "speculative" eminent domain. That "taking" has been happening -- "incrementally", in the words of fishing legend Steve Huff -- for half a century in Florida.

Big Sugar in Tallahassee is waving the banner of "eminent domain" like cry babies. The next president for the Florida Senate inserted that big trap door into the current senate president's prize legislation. If you want to know whose livelihoods are already being taken -- by Big Sugar's rampant polluting practices -- just look at those Florida Keys fishermen.

"Help!" is an easier, shorter way to spell, "Florida Bay and the economic life of South Florida has already been "taken" by Big Sugar" without any compensation at all.

Citizen warriors fought to protect the Everglades in the 1940's, when the national park was created but left wetlands critical to the health of the ecosystem outside park boundaries. In decades that followed, state legislators tried various band-aids to staunch the losses and incursions by growth-at-any-cost suburbs, developers in wetlands and Big Ag. In the 1980's, Florida environmentalists launched federal litigation that ran its course straight to the present day; nearly forty years of chasing shifting baselines and regulatory capture by the immensely wealthy sugar industry propped up by impermeable privileges embedded in the federal Farm Bill.

Big Sugar is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a week in this legislative session to keep that perspective from entering Tallahassee city limits. The solution, right now, is for the public to demand that Senate Bill 10 and whatever version emerges in the House stick to the original intent of Senator Negron: take out the poison pills, the trap doors, and the Trojan Horses. Stick up for hard working Floridians and natural resources that have been the lifeblood of the state economy.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Make Florida Great Again: Good Reason To Support Senate President Negron's Intent In Everglades Land Purchases ... by gimleteye

Follow on Twitter: @gimleteyemiami

After the historic rainfall during the winter of 2015/2016, Senate President Joe Negron faced constituents who were exhausted and furious that their estuaries, beaches and waterways were being used as toxic waste sites for filthy water from Lake Okeechobee. Senator Negron resolved, at the time, to do what more than 200 scientists had already concluded was necessary: buy enough land in the Everglades Agricultural Area, where Big Sugar is king, to store and treat flood waters when Lake Okeechobee filled too high, threatening the security of communities below the dike.

On Wednesday, the Senate is taking up what emerged from Senator Negron's initiative. Last week, Senate Bill 10 passed the Appropriations Committee. If it passes the Senate, the next steps involve reconciliation with a House version. Keep your fingers crossed and make your phone calls to legislators now, because the current version of SB 10 has strayed considerably from Senator Negron's intent.



The first issue: the size of a reservoir to hold billions of gallons of stormwater from Lake Okeechobee, the diseased liquid heart of Florida. Senator Negron, taking his cue from qualified scientists, initially aimed at securing 60,000 acres in the Everglades Agricultural Area to be purchased with moneys available from the widely popular 2014 Amendment 1 citizens referendum. Everglades advocates had originally sized the acreage requirement considerably larger, at 100,000 acres, to store fresh water at a depth of one foot, or, 1,000,000 acre feet.

Senator Negron ran into instant opposition from Big Sugar, the most political influential (next to electric utilities and cement manufacturers) in the state. Big Sugar doesn't want any land taken out of sugarcane production. It steadfastly opposes any exercise of the option to buy US Sugar lands, a deal the company agreed to with the state in 2010.

As a result, the current bill omits specific reference to acreage and instead substituted volume. The current bill refers to 240,000 acre feet of new water supply -- far from the one million acre feet originally contemplated -- that could possibly, at some point in the future, rise to 360,000 acre feet if the smaller volume fails to meet Everglades water quality standards established through decades of bitter, contentious litigation.

As the Treasure Coast Palm points out, the current bill doesn't identify any new additions of privately owned sugar lands to the storage plan. It only contemplates using existing public lands -- and maybe more sugar lands in the future. Lands identified in the current bill were not only designated for storage in the past, they have already received hundreds of millions of infrastructure "improvements" in addition to the cost of buying the land from Big Sugar in the first place.

The new plan is to build, in the midst of former Everglades wetlands now sugarcane, a mini-Lake Okeechobee with walls about 38 feet high, about 20 miles around, in order to store water at a depth of about 12 feet. The total cost? In the low billions. It shows how little influence citizens have in comparison to Big Sugar.

There is more.

To highlight a few issues: Big Sugar successfully lobbied the current bill to eliminate eminent domain as a legal recourse to buy its lands. Eminent domain is a tested way, though rarely used in the Everglades, for government to purchase property from unwilling sellers. (Triggering eminent domain requires a cooperative government agency. Under Gov. Rick Scott, environmental agencies have been hostile to the measure.) Although it is loudly held forth by conservatives as "government over-reach", eminent domain is often quietly deployed by government to serve electric utilities, road builders, wall builders and developers (cf. Donald Trump) when their plans are considered important public purposes. Big Sugar fears, at some fuzzy point in the future, Floridians could elect a governor who supports eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

Big Sugar, in the current bill, also inserted a major rewrite of Florida water law. Rainfall in Florida is a public resource. Government manages fresh water in Florida as a public benefit. The provisions of the current Everglades bill detonate Florida's legacy with a new statute to allow large private property owners to use taxpayer dollars to fund the planning and design of new treatment facilities on their land in order to then sell rainfall to the public. Water privatization is the gold ring that is within Big Sugar's reach through the current version of the bill.

The bottom line: Senate Bill 10 offers citizens only hurdles while providing Big Sugar a clear path to further socialize risk and privatize profit. Great if you are a Big Sugar millionaire or billionaire. If you are a fisherman, a kayaker, or maybe get protein for your family by fishing in water management district canals? Not so much.

There is still time for state legislators to get it right, but they will have to start thinking about what is in the public interest as a higher priority than what is in the interest of wealthy private corporations.

With more than 100 Big Sugar lobbyists prowling the hallways and bar rooms of the state capitol today -- compared to a few environmentalists -- the table is set. Big Sugar's campaign has been an aggregation of savvy public relations, promises and arm-twisting, using the same tactics it deployed in the mid-1990s to defeat a plan to assess a penny-a-pound tax on sugar to help pay for Everglades restoration. Still, to many environmentalists and civic activists, the Negron initiative is the last, best chance in their lifetimes to restore a measure of equity to Florida's fresh water resources, to private property along Florida's waterway, to economically disadvantaged who always bear the highest costs of pollution, and to Florida's treasured, iconic natural resources.

In the coming weeks, it will take considerable political skill for Senator Negron to succeed, on behalf of his constituents whose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has been badly damaged by pollution spewing from Lake Okeechobee. Citizens can help by calling state legislators now and ask that the current Senate Bill 10 and the House version retain the initial purpose of Senate President Negron: make Florida great again.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton Has A Sugar Problem ... by gimleteye

Hillary with Pepe Fanjul, Florida Crysals
History is a bummer. My experience along these lines was deeply imprinted by the 2000 presidential election and its aftermath. In Florida, Democratic candidate Al Gore, campaign manager Donna Brazile, and top Florida advisors steered the candidate away from taking a position on an environmental crisis I helped elevate to a fever pitch: the apparent intent of the Clinton administration to turn over the Homestead Air Force Base to a group of Miami-Dade lobbyists and insiders.

During the summer of 2000, the air base issue percolated through the presidential campaigns the same way that toxic pollution of Florida's estuaries has bubbled to the surface in this election cycle. Then, like today, powerful, monied insiders sought to suppress the visibility and priority of the issue. Then, it was powerful Cuban American businessmen who persuaded Democrats that Miami-Dade County was in play. Today, it is one of Florida's most powerful insider players, Big Sugar.

Gore, throughout the campaign, was silent on the air base issue. It was a tragic miscalculation, as Ralph Nader pointed out. Nader, running an independent campaign, not only stated his opposition to the insider deal, he also featured the issue in Florida campaign stops.

Gore was stunned and inarticulate on questions drawing contrasts to his mantle of leadership on the environment. When asked, later, about the impact of the air base on the outcome -- the victory of George W. Bush over Gore by only a few hundred votes -- Nader quipped it was one of a dozen banana peels Gore haplessly mistook for solid ground.

Hillary supporters are hoovering campaign cash from South Florida. This strange election cycle issues have taken back seat to the cult of personality. That will change once the party conventions are over, and when it does change, there is one issue where Hillary will have to take a stand. Hopefully, Hillary won't screw it up like Al Gore did with Homestead Air Force Base.

The Bill Clinton affair with Big Sugar is a strong enough factor to sway a significant part of the Florida electorate: taxpayers outraged how Big Sugar uses corporate welfare to buy off Congress and the state legislature while dominating water management practices and policies and enforcement in the state.

In Florida, Big Sugar --  the Fanjul billionaires and U.S. Sugar Corporation, controlled by the Charles Stuart Mott Foundation based in Flint, Michigan -- gets what it wants, when it wants it. Coastal real estate property owners, tourism-related businesses, and anyone who treasures the state's estuaries, rivers, Everglades and bays, are Big Sugar's sacrifice zone.

Last week, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson called for agencies to start eminent domain proceedings to legally take significant acreage in sugarcane production for the purpose of storage and treatment marshes that would eventually stop the toxic discharges from Lake Okeechobee and deliver clean, fresh water south. Nelson's statement was extraordinary. It was the first time a senior Florida politician had uttered the words. Nelson's 2018 reelection campaign is likely to include a challenger -- Gov. Rick Scott -- who is fully bought and paid for by Big Sugar.

Where does Senator Nelson's support for eminent domain in the EAA leave Hillary in Florida this November? We don't know. What we do know is that the Fanjuls have courted the Clintons over many decades.

Have the Clintons been entertained, separately or together, by the Fanjuls at their Dominican Republic hideaway, Casa De Campo, a convenient off-shore base for entertainment and recreation of politicians tired of scrutiny in the United States? Does Hillary Clinton support eminent domain proceedings against Big Sugar in the Everglades Agricultural Area?

Hillary should support eminent domain. After all, it will make the beneficiaries even richer than they are today, and everything for them is a question of money.  Hillary should support eminent domain because nothing else has worked to protect Floridians and the natural resources that are the foundational base for the economy. Not the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, championed by Bill Clinton's environmental chief, Carol Browner, and not billions of dollars of taxpayer investment while Big Sugar manipulated the Farm Bill.

Where is Hillary Clinton on the sugar program in the Farm Bill, what Grover Norquist calls "cronyism in is undiluted, inexcusable majesty"? Hillary should support reform, too.

Hillary Clinton has to address her Big Sugar problem. She has to step away from her husband's record in the Everglades. She must speak clearly and block out insiders whispering in her ear the way Al Gore's did in Florida to history's consternation.


MIAMI HERALD
ENVIRONMENT
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article88992067.html#storylink=cpy

JULY 11, 2016 7:53 PM

Sugar’s decades-long hold over Everglades came with a price
The industry spent more than $57 million over 22 years to influence Florida campaigns
Records show Big Sugar was consistently one of the largest contributors to both Republicans, Democrats
Industry’s clout helped it to transfer clean-up costs and postpone deadlines

BY MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE
Fifteen years after Jeb Bush and Bill Clinton reached a landmark accord to revive the Everglades, billions of dollars have been spent but not much marsh has been restored, and the River of Grass continues to cycle through the same familiar struggles.

Disastrous algae blooms foul coastal estuaries. Seagrass die-offs plague Florida Bay. High water threatens the Lake Okeechobee dike. Everglades marshes drown under too much water or wither under too little. All the ecological crises of this summer are just déjà vu, all over again.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Breaking up the Big Sugar cartel in Florida ... by gimleteye

On social media like Facebook, Instagram, and the blogs, an unprecedented event is occurring:  people on Florida coasts are linking up to express outrage against Big Sugar and to organize for the purchase of lands in sugar cane production south of Lake Okeechobee for water treatment marshes.

Big Sugar's chokehold on public opinion is slipping. 

From Florida Bay and Monroe County to populations ringing the Everglades, the chorus is rising: buy Big Sugar lands, send clean, fresh water south.

The refusals from Big Sugar ("We are just ordinary people and good citizens who care" and "we've already done our fair share") cannot stand up to facts: the industry's manipulation of water management infrastructure and priorities mask huge damage and costs to property owners and tourism-dependent businesses on both Florida coasts.


Moreover, Big Sugar is not just "ordinary people": it represents corporate welfare at its most toxic efflorescence. The sugar subsidy in the Farm Bill mainly accrues to the net worth of two billionaire families: the Fanjuls -- of the Flo-Sun and Florida Crystals' empire -- and the descents of Charles Stuart Mott who control US Sugar Corporation.

Big Sugar's plan has a single objective: to make the Fanjul and Mott descendants as rich as possible. Doing so, when heavy rainfall requires the emptying of Lake Okeechobee, means turning other people's property and businesses into sacrifice zones.



Ultimately, the Fanjuls and Mott descendants have one objective: to pin their hundreds of thousands of acres to an imaginary value as subdivisions and not agricultural land.

Every move of Big Sugar's PR juggernaut, including local economic groups, Chambers of Commerce and trade councils, is to make that value less hypothetical, as though there were a thousand homes per acre and not a crop -- sugarcane -- that, in excess, poisons people and is more addictive than cocaine. Its armies of lobbyists, "environmental" land use lawyers, and elected officials have spent decades inching the Everglades Agricultural Area toward its valuation as strip malls and zero lot line subdivisions.

The difference between Big Sugar's imaginary value and a realistic appraisal of its land worth is measured by political outcomes. That is why Big Sugar spends millions of dollars to influence elections from dog-catcher to the White House. In the GOP presidential primary, Big Sugar bet heavily on Jeb Bush, first, and Marco Rubio, second, and this week suffered an uncharacteristic loss.

Pepe Fanjul and Hillary Clinton, good friends
Government does have a legitimate means to put private land in public ownership, if sellers will not agree to sell and an important public purpose is served. It is called eminent domain, and it takes a governmental entity -- whether at the state or federal level -- to initiate.

For any "unwilling" property owner in the Everglades watershed, the hint of eminent domain proceedings is like winning the Powerball lottery. Just ask Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam. In lieu of a lengthy and costly eminent domain court case, his family farm was purchased by the state for $25 million only a year after being appraised at $5 million.

For Big Sugar, eminent domain is like the chicken and the egg: which comes first? -- its subdivisions with zero lot line housing or a massive taxpayer buyout. This is not a complicated story, but it is an end-game and one that Big Sugar has successfully blocked from telling.

Decades of delays in fixing what is wrong with Florida's capitulation to Big Sugar require the intervention of Florida voters.

The incrementalism that passes for Everglades restoration can only be stopped by voters insisting on a change to Big Sugar's "most favored nation status".

It will take millions of voters to bring the day, closer, when the state's waterways, property and jobs tied to Florida Bay, Sanibel, Fort Myers and Stuart are no longer treated as Big Sugar's collateral damage on the way to a billion dollar taxpayer buyout.

You see: one way or another, Big Sugar will get its price. Florida voters must push that day, closer, because we really have run out of time.

Buy the land. Send clean, fresh water south.

From Bullsugar.org
And it's the SAME story on Florida's west coast.
And here.


Monday, September 24, 2012

Gimleteye: Family of Secrets and the Bush Dynasty

Reading Russ Baker, "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's invisible government, and the hidden history of the last fifty years", certainly puts some perspective to events in Florida. This book was published nearly four years ago, but it is relevant today -- perhaps even more so, given the upcoming November elections.

The obvious connection between Baker's research and Miami is the proximity of Bush loyalists and intelligence operatives to Cuban American "plumbers" who participated in Watergate, that eventually brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon and paved way for the political ascent of George H.W. Bush. (You can purchase the book from the website of Books and Books, here.)

Deep in Baker's book I found a fascinating story of interest to critics of the Marlins Stadium extravaganza: how George W. Bush became part owner of a baseball stadium in Texas that paved his way forward to the governor's mansion.

It is excerpted here: (click 'read more')

Friday, September 07, 2018

Andrew Gillum has Florida's vote ... by gimleteye


Florida Democratic candidate for Governor Andrew Gillum chooses Chris King as running mate. Both advocate changing state laws that turned Florida's waters into toxic sacrifice zones for Big Sugar profits
Here is an important interview with Andrew Gillum, the Democratic candidate for governor, standing at the polluted shore of Florida's tourism-dependent west coast.

At min. 5:36 of this interview shared on Facebook, Andrew Gillum calls for eminent domain, a legitimate government purpose to take land for fair market value for a critical public purpose: to build sufficient storage and treatment marshes to avoid spewing toxic waters from Lake Okeechobee -- waters made toxic by decades of Big Sugar farm runoff -- into the Everglades, into the Caloosahatchee, and the St. Lucie rivers.

https://www.facebook.com/andrewgillumfl/videos/316675085827506/UzpfSTIxNDQ4MDUzODcwMzY2NzoxMTUyNTIxMTU4MjMyOTI5/

Here is a FACT: in 2017 the Republican majority in the Florida legislature and Gov. Rick Scott (who wants your vote to be next US Senator) turned the Everglades reservoir bill -- to cost at least $2 billion -- into a Trojan Horse for Big Sugar's purposes: block eminent domain.

If that $2 billion had been used to close the 2010 deal to put US Sugar Corporation lands into public ownership, we would be nearly a decade closer to fixing the state's pollution crisis. But we aren't because Rick Scott and a Republican legislature claimed doing so was "too expensive", not important enough, and "extreme".

Tell that to businesses, visitors and residents (many of whom are Republicans!) whose quality of life, property values, and opinion of Florida is turning to shit like Florida waters.

It is going to take a new Democratic majority and a Democratic governor to undo tragic mistakes made by Rick Scott and the GOP, stretching back decades.

Why, tragic mistakes? Because today Rick Scott and his supporters support another dirty scheme: to pump billions of gallons of toxic water deep underground in a scheme that serves only one purpose: make well drillers, engineers, and lobbyists very rich. They even have a marketing tested name for this idiocy: "estuary protection wells". BULLSHIT.

It's another scam by Big Sugar to wring the last penny of profit from former Everglades wetlands until they can repurpose those lands as zero lot line housing, strip malls, inland ports, and power plants. Billionaire polluters have wrecked the state of Florida, and only voters can change that outcome.

Andrew Gillum gets it. Let's hope Florida voters finally get it too.


(Read more about eminent domain and Big Sugar, here.)

Friday, July 08, 2016

Time For Eminent Domain In Big Sugar Lands ... by gimleteye

After reading the Everglades Trust letter dated July 6 to Gov. Rick Scott calling for eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area, I was curious how many years I've written on the issue; a legal taking in the Everglades Agricultural Area in order to provide enough storage capacity to prevent Florida's estuaries from being bombed with toxic puke from Lake Okeechobee and eventually, to be able to send clean, fresh water south.

Many years. Here is one from December 2013:

The Palm Beach Post editorial board published the best Everglades related editorial of the year and it warrants wide circulation. The editorial is a little fuzzy on the lawsuit settlement that resulted in an agreement to invest nearly $900 million in Everglades treatment marshes. The lawsuit that triggered the settlement was initiated by the group where I serve as volunteer board president, Friends of the Everglades.

At any rate, the point is clear: Big Sugar's domination of political processes only strengthened under the disastrous term of Gov. Rick Scott and an extremist GOP legislature willing to do the industry's bidding at every single turn. The Democrats, for their part, are far from blameless. Gov. Charlie Crist and his predecessor, Jeb Bush, paid lip service to environmental and growth management policies that could have buffered the industry's influence. Never happened. (Gov. Scott's most egregious action was to authorize the elimination of the science capacity of the South Florida Water Management District: in other words, to ensure that the disastrous results of his Everglades policies could not be measured meaningfully.)

A former Friend of the Everglades' staffer, Joe Podgor, coined the following: "The Everglades is a test. If we pass, we get to keep the planet." What Podgor meant was that restoring the Everglades is not only achievable; all the players, the pieces of the puzzle, are visible and measurable in South Florida. If we can't fix the Everglades, what can we fix?

Apparently, nothing.

That's why on this blog, I embrace the mantra: Big Sugar poisons people, poisons Democracy, and poisons the Everglades.

Voters should demand a "no sugar money" pledge from elected officials, with the same force as other pledges like Grover Norquist's because if sugar's domination of Tallahassee and Washington doesn't represent taxation without representation, I don't know what does.

Editorial: Deal for sugar land bad for public, but still in the public interest
Updated: 7:45 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013 | Posted: 7:18 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2013

By Randy Schultz - Editorial Writer

We see again that however important Everglades restoration is to Florida, it will happen on the sugar industry’s terms.

In mid-2012, Gov. Rick Scott sold the Obama administration on a new state plan for saving what remains of the Everglades. Gov. Scott had no environmental credentials, but he wanted out from the 1988 lawsuit that forced the state to start cleaning water that runs from sugar cane fields into the Everglades. A special tax on the 16 counties of the South Florida Water Management District and on the farmers in the Everglades Agricultural Area finances projects to store and treat such runoff.

For Gov. Scott to please the White House and the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit, the state needs more land for those projects. A key piece is roughly 4,600 acres owned by Florida Crystals and Gladeview Holdings. It would double the size of a treatment area for water that goes into the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge in Palm Beach County. Florida Crystals and Gladeview would trade that land for 8,600 acres the state owns.

Knowing how much the state needed the land, however, Florida Crystals also demanded a 30-year lease to keep farming about 8,000 acres of state land. The 1994 Everglades Forever Act limits such leases to 20 years, so the land can be available sooner for restoration work. But the sugar industry has far more power in Tallahassee than environmental groups, and in January Gov. Scott and the Florida Cabinet approved the longer lease. That action prompted a lawsuit by the Florida Wildlife Federation.

Two weeks ago, The Post’s Christine Stapleton reported that the water management district missed the Sept. 30 deadline to close on the deal acquiring the Florida Crystals/Gladeview land. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the five water management districts, blamed the federation’s lawsuit and extended the deadline to Jan. 30.

That blame is misplaced. Last spring, as part of what disingenuously labeled environmental regulation bill, the Legislature codified those 30-year leases by blocking any lawsuits to overturn them. More likely, Florida Crystals and Gladeview are holding out for even more favors, though Ms. Stapleton showed how the deal already is a lopsided one, with the public getting the short end by about $25 million.

When the companies demanded the longer leases, the state could have started eminent domain proceedings to take the land, with an arbitrator determining the price. But though the sugar industry has caused much of the pollution in the Everglades, the industry’s campaign donations in Florida and Washington insulate it from such challenges — even as The Washington Post reports that the federal program to support sugar prices costs the government $300 million each year and raises prices for consumers.

Still, the water management district should meet the new deadline, with no more favors for the industry. The land is vital to Everglades restoration, and Everglades restoration is vital to Florida.

Randy Schultz
for The Post Editorial Board

One of the great outrages of our era in Florida is the failure of Florida's governing majority to heed the call of so many, including 207 scientists in 2015 pleading with the Rick Scott administration to initiate large-scale land purchases in the EAA through exercising its option to buy U.S. Sugar Corporation lands.

Here is the text of the Everglades Trust letter to Gov. Scott:

July 6, 2016

The Honorable Rick Scott, Governor
State of Florida
PL 05 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Dear Governor Scott:

As Florida’s chief executive officer, you hold the power to initiate the solution to the ongoing collapse of vital areas of South Florida, as well as the Everglades eco-system, due to continual discharges of polluted water from Lake Okeechobee to the east coast and west coast and a woefully inadequate supply of clean freshwater to the Everglades and Florida Bay in the Florida Keys.

The time is now to prepare for the reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee, in the EAA. It has been 16 years since the State of Florida agreed to this project. You, alone, possess the authority to make it a reality.

As you are aware, a storage reservoir in the EAA has been an integral part of CERP since its inception. More than 200 independent scientists have determined it is the only way to reduce the harmful Lake Okeechobee discharges, hydrate the central Everglades wetlands and stabilize the salinity levels within Florida Bay, while ensuring the safety of the source of water supply for 8 million Floridians.

We respectfully request you begin a 30-day process of personal meetings with the four or five major landowners south of Lake Okeechobee to determine their willingness to donate, sell or convey the 60,000 acres necessary to implement the EAA reservoir solution. Of course, you still have the right to exercise the current option to purchase US Sugar’s land, which expires in 2020.

However, if after 30 days you are unable to find a willing seller or sellers, please immediately begin the process of eminent domain, recognizing that this necessary tool of government will provide compensation to the affected landowners. The circumstances are as dire as that statement suggests.

Thank you for your careful consideration of our request and your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Mitchell
Executive Director

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Time for eminent domain in the EAA: if your state legislator says he or she is proud of this session, ask why the legislature completely ignores the will of the people ... by gimleteye

Strongly agree with Tampa Bay Times Bill Maxwell: Florida needs a constitutional amendment along the following line: "One result should be the option of eminent domain. Floridians should have the right, for example, to take Big Sugar land at a fair price to restore the Everglades."

With a bought-and-paid-for state legislature, Everglades restoration is a series of half-steps, eventually heading to never arrive at the destination. Look what the legislature has done with Amendment 1: last November more than 75 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment to purchase environmentally sensitive lands. The state legislature took no time at all to ignore the will of the people.

Florida needs new amendment to protect environment
Bill Maxwell, Opinion Columnist - Tampa Bay Times

In its familiar dissembling way, the Republican-led Florida Legislature is contravening the official will of the people.

Last November, a supermajority of voters approved Amendment 1. It was supposed to strengthen Florida Forever, substantially protect natural habitats and enable the purchase of vital land statewide. Most notably, Amendment 1 money would position the state to purchase 46,000 acres owned by U.S. Sugar Corp. that would be used to help restore the Everglades. The option to buy the land expires in October.

Republican conservatives and cowed Democrats in Tallahassee have no intention of using a fair share of the millions of dollars from the amendment's documentary stamp tax proceeds to buy land. They intend to spend a lot of it on wastewater projects and to clean up agriculture's pollution.

Monday, July 04, 2016

They ignored until they could ignore no longer: Florida's water quality catastrophe ... by gimleteye


Blue green algae in Stuart, FL, a Republican stronghold. Photo courtesy of WPTV.
(Originally published July 1, 2016. Updated, July 4.) An unprecedented media frenzy is now covering Florida's diseased waters. The visuals are compelling. Dead fish. Green slime. Videos of toxic scum carpeting backyard canals and rivers like alien foam are all over the internet and social media. Predictably, Florida politicians are following, because the 24/7 news cycle is opportunity and peril wrapped in one fearsome soundbite. Just one example; the presumptive GOP candidate to be Florida's next governor in two years, Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam, last week quietly withdrew a proposal by Big Ag to reduce water quality standards.

Thousands of Floridians formed on a Martin County beach two days ago; spelling out a S.O.S. to the media and anyone who can see Florida from far away: "Buy the Land!" The message meaning is clear to activists who have been trying, for decades to draw attention to the way the state's constant erosion against water quality protections was putting the public in harm's way, just like it has been in Flint, Michigan.

In many respects, Florida's is a much, much larger problem. In Flint, eventually the lead pipes can be replaced and water treatment plants upgraded. In Florida, the entire political system is based on giving Big Agriculture -- mainly Big Sugar south of Lake Okeechobee -- whatever it wants in terms of "limited government" to reduce the power of regulators.

Although the news cycle is making tangential reference to the thick carpet of toxic blue green algae covering miles of South Florida waterways and the influence of Big Ag, it has yet to drill down into the corrupt mess to find the state's biggest campaign contributors, Big Sugar billionaires, hiding there.

After historic rainfall events in early 2016 forced the early opening of Lake Okeechobee floodgates by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Big Sugar -- principally, U.S. Sugar Corporation, the largest sugarcane producer in the state -- flooded local newspapers with full page advertisements and local TV news with commercials. It organized its own paid fake "news" and OPEDs by civic proxies. In its PR campaign, Big Sugar blamed everyone and everything; casting doubt and aspersions against local sewer practices, against wealthy coastal environmentalists, against the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Big Sugar says "stay the course", without acknowledging that course it designed has been an abject failure.

Since the 24/7 news cycle descended on Florida, Big Sugar's self-serving advertisements have disappeared. It is as if industry executives and their marketing strategists decided that while the TV cameras are focused on problems they caused, the best course is to lie low and hope that only a few of the dots get connected.

What really worries Big Sugar: that its role in this water quality catastrophe, suddenly visible, could become a real liability to politicians it has funded in local, state and national elections. Shadow governments need darkness not light.

The uproar -- first igniting on social media a year ago (I have called it, Florida's Arab Spring) -- is unprecedented. For one, the worst affected communities are predominantly GOP strongholds on the east and west coast. When given the chance to express themselves at the ballot box in last March's presidential primary, these voters rabidly turned against Marco Rubio. Rubio never saw what hit him; his own record as a proxy for Big Sugar.

For decades, Big Sugar has rallied the interests of conservatives in "limited government", locking down both the executive mansion and the state legislature in the process. What today's stinking, repulsive algae blooms reveal is that the net result of Florida's embrace of "limited government" caused this water quality catastrophe.

The governor's appointees to the board of the South Florida Water Management District have been exemplary public servants of an entrenched status quo. Board members like Kevin Powers had become smug and self-satisfied in their outright contempt for those who demanded that the the state "buy the land" in sugarcane production south of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

At one memorable District meeting last year, actors hired from Miami -- tied to one of the governing board members, James J. Moran -- waged a counter-protest against citizens demanding the state purchase Big Sugar lands. Gov. Scott, Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam, and Senate President Negron pushed back against Bullsugar.org and groups like the SWFL Clean Water Movement without much attention by the national press until -- wham! -- disaster struck.

Last week Senator Rubio toured Martin County coastline coated with toxic scum. A yacht bearing the senator and entourage arrived to a press conference while noisy protesters gathered on the shore, faces covered in masks in an effort to filter the stench of the St. Lucie River.

Senator Rubio seemed half-hearted in his attempt to portray himself as deeply concerned. His record in Florida is tirelessly working on behalf of Big Sugar to lower water quality standards. In 2003, Rubio was a whip for Gov. Jeb Bush on a bill lowering Everglades water quality standards crowd-swarmed by sugar lobbyists. That new law was successfully challenged by Friends of the Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe in federal court but caused a decade delay in water quality improvements, setting up today's disaster. For press conferences as he tries to retain his US Senate seat, Rubio will have worked out his talking points well in advance with the help of another former state legislator; Gaston Cantens who also proved his mettle on the 2003 bill and is now comfortably ensconced as government lobbyist for the Fanjuls.

After leaving the legislature, Rubio moved back to Miami picking up local lawyering and lobbying on land use zoning changes. In 2010, he was called off the back bench by the Fanjuls (Florida Crystal's owners) to run against former Gov. Charlie Crist. Crist had signed a deal with the Fanjul's cartel competitor, U.S. Sugar, to put its lands in public ownership; a land purchase that, had it been made at the time, would have set the state on a course to fix its water quality catastrophe.

Amidst last week's media furor, Florida's other U.S. Senator, Bill Nelson -- a Democrat -- uttered an eventuality that has never been heard in public by a major state elected official, "eminent domain". According to a Treasure Coast Palm report, Nelson supports the legal measure to compel unwilling sellers forward. Senator Nelson raised the possibility of government initiating a legal taking of sugar lands south of the diseased lake for the purpose of creating adequate acreage to store and cleanse overflow so that the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee rivers have a chance for recovery.

When questioned on Senator Nelson's unprecedented recommendation -- one that the senator had never made before during an era when environmentalists were calling for eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area -- Big Sugar refused comment. Meanwhile State Senate President Joe Negron, whose district is smack in the middle of the blue-green algae wasteland, assured the press that he is actively discussing land acquisition with his Big Sugar allies.

Negron won't answer the questions; when coastal real estate are turned into sacrifice zones, isn't that a form of "taking"? When coastal real estate turns worthless because touching river water or breathing the fumes from stinking, toxic algae is a very real health hazard, isn't that a de facto "taking"?

Negron says, "eminent domain" is the wrong way to go, but he hasn't addressed how this water quality catastrophe reveals Republican picking winners and losers; a form of taxation without representation on millions of affected Floridians.

This is a crisis that anyone with eyes open saw on the horizon, not one or two years ago, but 20 years ago when Lawton Chiles -- the last Democratic governor of Florida -- convened the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. The blue ribbon panel, comprising nearly two dozen stakeholders and government representatives had only a couple of environmental representatives.

The Commission had been formed as a result of the state's 1992 capitulation to a federal lawsuit against Big Sugar's nutrient pollution of the Everglades. Although the current media attention is unlikely to cast a glance backwards to report on a study two decades old, the report's conclusions classically dovetail with what special interests wanted. Just like Big Tobacco with lung cancer and Big Oil with climate change, Big Sugar pushed back hard against governmental intervention that could hamper its profits. Out of the Governor's Commission came support, only a few years later, for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. CERP wasn't comprehensive at all, because its cornerstone was not land for water storage and cleansing marshes but deep wells to inject billions of gallons in so- called "aquifer storage and recovery" wells. ASR was the three billion dollar pipe dream around which all other projects flowed, from 2000 to the present day.

Adequate water storage -- today's issue -- was studiously and zealously blocked, and not a single state politician objected at the time. Today's water quality catastrophe is the result of that misdirection.

Then, there is Gov. Rick Scott. The Tampa Bay Times recently reported that Scott and his related political committee received another $100,000 check from U.S. Sugar Corporation; a drop in the bucket of millions of dollars the industry spends to protect its privileged status and federal subsidies.


Where is the Florida Tea Party on this water quality crisis? At the end of the day, taxpayers will pay for Big Sugar's land. "Buy the land" means using taxpayer dollars to make Big Sugar even richer than the industry is today, thanks to federal subsidies in the U.S. Farm Bill.

Taxpayers have already paid billions in Everglades restoration that is, in essence, a work-around of sugar farmed on 400,000 acres south of Lake Okeechobee. Taxpayers are paying for the South Florida Water Management District's spin machine's irresponsible "myth versus fact" covering the prevailing myth of the state GOP: that the federal government is to blame for the state's water quality catastrophe. One of the reasons the Florida Tea Party is silent: it is likely funded by the polluters as it is elsewhere in the nation.

What all this media attention may do, finally, is cause Florida taxpayers and voters to wake up to the fact they did this all by themselves; electing generation after generation of politicians who refused to stand up to Big Sugar while allowing the conditions for Florida's water quality catastrophe to silently build and release with the force of a river bursting through a dike.

If you are skeptical about this analysis; take the time to find out for yourselves: in the past twenty years, has any state agency undertaken to regulate either blue-green toxic algae or to put tough numerical standards to regulations limiting nutrient pollution and chemicals contribution to algae blooms? Has any state agency gathered and released statistics on the incidence and location of rare bacterial infections caused by contact with contaminated river or ocean water in Florida? The answer to these questions is "no", and if you can't understand the reasons why, go back and read this report again. From the beginning.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Part Two: The Agony of Florida, Its Rivers, Bays, Estuaries, And Politics ... by gimleteye

Read: "Part One: The Agony of Florida, Its Rivers, Bays, Estuaries, And Politics"




Big Sugar controls Florida except for the rain.

Managing government regulations and laws are routine costs of Big Sugar business. It takes big money to externalize the costs of pollution, say, or to increase costs to public health as a consequence of promoting added sugar in the American diet.

Alfie and Pepe Fanjul, Florida Crystals
Expensive as lobbying, lawyering and politicking may be, millions per year are only a fraction of the windfall derived from government subsidies and sugar price supports.

Floods or drought are other matters. Big Sugar can't plan for too much rain or too little, but in both cases, the effect of weather extremes is to make crop yields unpredictable. Reducing unpredictability to the maximum extent possible challenges every farmer. With so much money at stake, Big Sugar has perfected its tools.

That's why Big Sugar practices stage craft relentlessly. It has profit and motivation to keep its adversaries at bay; with strategies and tactics sharpened with focus groups and consultants. In the meantime, as a permanent matter, Big Sugar keeps a tight grip on the levers of water management infrastructure in South Florida; the most highly engineered and complex system in the world.

Big Sugar proxies at the state water management district governing board are now challenging a new law signed by Gov. Rick Scott on May 12, 2017. After the bill was introduced by Senate president Joe Negron, it was first opposed then supported by Big Sugar. There is only reason why Big Sugar would have permitted a law to be passed that it is now fighting. That’s what it planned to do from the first. It is another phase in the industry's permanent war against government regulation.

Why would Big Sugar fight an outcome it supported in the state legislature only a month ago?

The external husk of the law provides funding for a massive reservoir in the middle of the historic Everglades. Sugar successfully derailed a plan supported by environmentalists and scientists and countless citizens to buy 60,000 acres of additional sugar lands for the purpose of cleansing and treatment marshes. Instead, Big Sugar supported the construction -- with public dollars -- of a 12 foot deep reservoir, comprising nearly 26 square miles with walls over 30 feet high.

The kernals of the new law are what Big Sugar wanted. Here's is what Big Sugar got in exchange for supporting a deep reservoir its proxies at the water management district are now fighting: 1) real hard money, 2) a regulatory framework that continues to push environmental restoration so far into the future that most of the actors now on the stage will be gone by the time science concludes whether a billion dollars was well spent or wasted and 3) assurances that if the massive lake — costing at least $1 billion — is built but then fails its purposes, then the public will have to come back to Big Sugar without the most important leverage that government has in the execution of big infrastructure projects: eminent domain.

The new reservoir will be built atop a porous geology — lime rock — and on public lands that had already been designated for water treatment. Instead of a shallow marsh, Gov. Scott and the legislature approved a deep lake. The same depth as Lake Okeechobee, a breeding ground for toxic algae.

Whether or not a massive man-made lake is built, the innards of the new law confer massive benefits to Big Sugar. The fine points of the deal are liquid gold; in addition to prohibiting eminent domain, the law includes a requirement that any deal-making involving public lands farmed under lease by Big Sugar must done on the lessee's terms, and a novel way for Florida farmers to sell rain water to the public at the public’s expense.

That last bit is a huge, because a right of private ownership of rainfall never existed in Florida law. Now it does.

The backstory is deeply woven in the spirit of a rigged competition for Florida’s fresh water supply.

In South Florida in the winter of 2015/ 2016, rains began falling heavily. In dry season. Historic, biblical rainfall. Noah built his ark for such an event but not in a presidential election year. On the east coast of the Florida peninsula, the rainfall caused a powerful state legislator to face hard choices.


Joe Negron, a well-regarded attorney from Stuart and state senator, had advanced steadily to the top of the Florida GOP leadership.
His route to the presidency of the senate in a massively important electoral state was vetted every step of the way. Negron was trusted to distribute major political campaign money through committees networked like sections of a spider’s web. Its individual strands connected through a small, elite group of directors, board members, and very wealthy funders. It is political money laundering, it is legal, and it is the American way thanks to the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court.

The state’s biggest campaign contributor is Big Sugar, a cartel with two primary actors: Florida Crystals, owned by Fanjul family, and US Sugar Corporation, controlled by the descendants of the Charles Stuart Mott fortune. These are billionaire competitors who even conservative critics, from the American Enterprise Institute to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, acknowledge as masters at rigging the political system to its own purposes.

For Senator Negron, under normal circumstances serving constituents in his district and Big Sugar would not be mutually exclusive. The rainfall in the winter of 2015/ 2016, with a presidential election on the horizon, was not a normal circumstance.

The flood stage in Lake Okeechobee, the diseased liquid heart of Florida, was approaching emergency level. Hurricane season — when copious rainfall is predicted to occur — was months from arriving. Something had to give. The “fix”: release massive amounts of highly polluted water from Lake Okeechobee to both Florida coasts; through the Caloosahatchee to the west and the St. Lucie to the east. As recently as 2013, these same coastal resources and communities had been nuked by polluted lake water; sending devastating algae blooms through treasured natural habitats but also right to the doorstep of Senator Negron’s constituents. Memories were raw, of fish kills and water too dangerous to touch.

In the winter of 2015/2016 civic protesters from primarily Republican districts in Florida threatened to scramble the  outcome of a presidential election
In late 2015 more than 200 Everglades scientists had signed a letter imploring Governor Rick Scott — a Big Sugar ally — to purchase at least 60,000 acres of Big Sugar lands for additional storage and treatment. Their plea was a significant reduction from what environmentalists had pleaded for a decade earlier; an increase of at least 100,000 acres. Big Sugar currently farms around 700,000 acres around the southern rim of Lake Okeechobee.

Senator Negron couldn’t ignore the logic for land purchase, although it ran counter-clockwise to the exquisitely calibrated time clock of Big Sugar.

In 2008, then Gov. Charlie Crist had negotiated an option to purchase more than 187,000 acres owned by US Sugar. Shrinking the cartel would expose new opportunities to reshuffle the political house of cards in Florida. That, in itself, was enough to send the co-cartel Fanjuls/ Florida Crystals into mad orbit.

Crist was punished by Big Sugar for his temerity negotiating the option to acquire U.S. Sugar. The Fanjuls heavily invested in his opponent, Marco Rubio. As a leader in the state legislature, Rubio had already proven his loyalty to Big Sugar. In the same election cycle, 2010, Gov. Rick Scott — a political neophyte was propelled to the governor’s mansion by his own fortune plus significant sugar money.

Fast forward to the winter of 2015/ 2016. In 2015 Roger Stone, Trump confidante, was on Big Sugar's payroll. He paid actors to counter-protest environmentalists and citizens at the water management district as the rains fell. Meanwhile, two Florida candidates for the GOP presidential nomination— Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio — gambled the Florida March primary would propel them to the GOP nomination. Both were favored sons of Big Sugar. And still the rains fell and primarily Republican districts began to join the greens.

A new grass-roots movement focused its ire on Big Sugar. Not environmental groups exclusively. Those opponents, Big Sugar had repeatedly pinned down. Groups like Bullsugar.org and Captains for Clean Water began organizing tens of thosuands of interested Floridians, finding their way around the mainstream press through social media. (At the time, I described the moment as “Florida’s Arab Spring”. I wasn’t far off, of the movement or of the backlash it triggered.)

Property owners and local businesses in Negron's district seethed with resentment. They understood the problem this way: their rights were being used as a sacrifice zone for Big Sugar. The poiednt is critical: Big Sugar has always known its unique vulnerability. Its small decision ranks, populated by very wealthy families, are no match for millions of Florida voters if they are awoken.

Senator Negron chose to calm his district. In early 2016 he pledged to dedicate his term as Senate president to legislation that would solve the pollution coursing lifeless, toxic sludge into his constitutents’ backyards.
Billions of gallons of polluted water per day coursed out of Lake Okeechobee into primarily Republican districts during the severe rainfall events of the 2015/2016 winter

Whether or not Negron knew the acquisition of 60,000 acres of land in sugar cane production was unachievable — a full year before his term as senate president was to begin — and notwithstanding Big Sugar's outrage and outer protestations, the rending of cloth and wringing of hands, a potentially explosive issue had been deflated by the incoming state senate president in a presidential election year. In a state that decided the presidency before.

This isn’t cynical politics. Heavy flooding laid bare inequities that don’t often rile voters. 29 electoral votes would be decided in November for Donald Trump. During the primary campaign he never answered a single question about Big Sugar or the Everglades or the devastated estuaries on both Florida coasts. (Rubio, on the other hand, called protecting the sugar subsidy in the Farm Bill a matter of “national security”, eliciting derisive howls from all quarters except one: his biggest campaign contributors, Big Sugar.)

In promising to address land acquisition in the March 2017 legislative session, Negron stripped the presidential campaign in Florida of a toxic mess.

In Miami, in Jan. 2016 protesters gathered outside a meeting of national non-profits to shame one of its participants: the Charles Stuart Mott Foundation that owns U.S. Sugar Corporation
Big Sugar, in the meantime, kicked into high gear its campaign to push responsibility for pollution onto any target that could fog a mirror. The industry pushed paid-for media, advertisements, local sugar advocates and recruiting indignant legislators and business leaders from North Florida to complain about the use of available funding for land acquisition. It attacked environmentalists. It attacked scientists. It attacked individuals. It recruited African Americans who would be harmed if their sugar jobs were sacrificed to the environment.

Their objections ranged from “the government already owns too much land” to “we want our region funded first.” (The land acquisition was to be funded through a mechanism put in the state consititution by voters through a popular referendum, generating 75% support in 2014, to use a portion of the documentary stamp tax generated through real estate transactions to fund environmentally sensitive lands.) Barbara Miedema, vice president of Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, said in August 2016, "Taking another 60,000 acres of productive and sustainable farmland out of the EAA will without a doubt close down our sugar mill and put us out of business. Sen. Negron’s plan means losing a thousand or more jobs in the Glades communities, not to mention the impact to businesses in the community that provide services to us.”

The threat of economic hardship was only one salvo. Big Sugar applied pressure against Negron from every direction. Much of it was Kabuki — the theater of well-worn roles where everyone in the audience has seen the play and even memorized the actors’ lines.

Big Sugar knew that irrespective of the presidential outcome, the only legislation that would pass the state legislature and be signed into law would be legislation Big Sugar wanted. And it wanted a lot.

The public may have thought it was getting an additional 60,000 acres to store and treat dirty water so it didn’t have to be flushed onto their doorsteps. What they got was a bill of goods they already owned.

Pull the thread a little harder, and it takes readers back to the early 2000’s.

After decades of litigation by environmental plaintiffs and obstruction and resistance by Big Sugar, in 2000 Congress and the State of Florida signed an agreement (CERP, The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) incorporating the need for vast new, additional storage to cleanse and treat fresh water flowing from the north to the south. Storage capacity is also the bane of Florida’s rivers and estuaries since, if there is not enough storage during flooding, both the east and west coast riverways are used as emergency relief valves for highly toxic water from Lake Okeechobee. CERP never addressed the water storage problem. It proposed, instead, more than 300 aquifer storage and recovery wells to store excess rainfall in what the late John Marshall called “Vertical parking lots”. At the time, the one federal agency with expertise on the technology, the USGS, was not even called in to consult.

Deep wells were a technological “fix”, or work-around, to a political problem just like the 26 square mile deep reservoir is, today.

No sooner had CERP been signed by both the state and federal government as a consent agreement, the state of Florida — and then Gov. Jeb Bush — set out to make the new law fit Big Sugar’s needs. Bush and then House leader Marco Rubio engineered a weakening of the federal consent agreement through a new 2003 law. Their action triggered another Clean Water Act lawsuit by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and a small, grass roots environmental group founded by Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Friends of the Everglades. Eventually, after six years of litigation, the plaintiffs prevailed. Faced with a clear loss, Gov. Rick Scott declared victory. He committed to a new framework agreement to comply with the 10 parts per billion phosphorous standard and earlier litigaiton, committing the state to invest $890 million in Everglades-related water quality projects.

This year’s water legislation doesn’t authorize purchase of any new lands and certainly not the 60,000 acres of additional lands deemed by scientists to be the minimum necessary to treat and cleanse polluted water that otherwise dumps on the coasts.

The point about water storage is: a volume of water — any volume — can be stored at a shallow depth on X acres of land, or, a deeper depth at a fraction of X. Which provides a better outcome? In the case of Florida, the best solution is the one that nature provides: move a vast, thin layer of water across meadows filled with grasses that slowly strip and cleanse pollutants like fertilizers and nutrients and other man-made chemicals that would not otherwise occur in the environment. Stagnant water is at constant risk of toxic algae breakouts.
Toxic runoff from Big Sugar drainage canal in the Everglades Agricultural Area
"His original project carried a $2.4 billion price tag and would have required 60,000 acres of active farmland, but he agreed to a $1.5 billion compromise that forces the South Florida Water Management District — which had repeated many of the sugar industry's talking points in opposition to the measure — to shoulder the responsibility for making sure the project is completed.” Beyond that, there are a lot of “ifs, ifs and ifs”.

Negron navigated the final bill and its provisions with only minimal public comment and practically no ventilation by legislative committees. It wasn’t a sign of strength, so much as of weakness that legislators would do nothing to cross a powerful campaign force like Big Sugar.

The deep reservoir plan — the only solution Big Sugar would approve because of its objection to sell any more of its land to the state — contains a major risk: that it will become the same vast breeding pool for toxic algae as Lake Okeechobee, whose toxic waters it is meant to replace. The problem: it will take at least a decade to find out if the lake works. In a balance between certainty and risk according to the provisions of the new law, all the certainty falls to Big Sugar and all the risk, to the environment and taxpayers.

We know Big Sugar got what it wanted out of the Everglades Bill because the industry and its lobbyists went dark as soon as the bill emerged from committee in the Senate. When the bill hit the floor of the House, there was opportunity for mischief, but Big Sugar mouthpieces mostly went quiet. There was no House version of the Senate bill. No back-and-forth. The deal had been cut by Big Sugar. Environmentalists trusted not to spill wine on the tablecloth — the Everglades Foundation and Audubon of Florida — had been given a peek inside the tent.

Democrats in the state legislature were limp. In-roads by Big Sugar to the African American caucus ensured that there would be no unity of purpose around a stronger outcome.  The bill that finally emerged, SB 10, was written in secret with virtually no input by either the public or by the legislature.

Public testimony at a single meeting, the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, was cut short after a few testified, but not before one pleader, a doctor from the Martin County Health System, noted that heart attacks in the community had skyrocketed after the polluted water fouled the St. Lucie River. He attributed it to the stress of people’s whose properties was being used as a septic system by Big Sugar. He only got three minutes.

Finally, it was Negron’s role to keep order in the legislature, making sure the bill passed without palpitations of the heart.

“This week, a $1.5 billion, 78-billion-gallon version of the plan finally passed through both houses of the Legislature last night in a move Everglades conservationists call historic. The nonprofit Everglades Trust called the deal "the most significant victory for Everglades restoration in more than two decades.” (State Finally Passes Everglades Restoration Reservoir Bill After 20 Years of Fighting Big Sugar UPDATED, Miami New Times, May 3, 2017)

Sierra Club assessed the bill as a “win”:
“Sierra Club supported the Everglades Reservoir bill, which the Governor signed this week. We backed the bill because, on balance, its passage benefited the Everglades and Florida's coastal waters.

“The law funding construction of a reservoir will help reduce Lake Okeechobee freshwater discharges that have been producing toxic algae in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, as well as send clean freshwater south to replenish aquifers, the Everglades and Florida Bay. Restoring these freshwater flows to the south will also improve the resiliency of South Florida from sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.”

“… While the new law speeds up the process for storing water on public land south of the Lake, it failed to provide any of the 60,000 acres of additional sugar land requested in the original bill for water storage, treatment and conveyance. The law also prohibits the state from using the power of eminent domain to acquire sugar lands, an important tool sometimes necessary to protect the Everglades, prevent ecological collapse, and preserve the water supply for 6 million people. The law forces more water to be stacked up in a smaller footprint, driving up costs and limiting options. We also remain very concerned that the South Florida Water Management District plans to rely on Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Deep Injection Wells north of the Lake instead of buying more land and building adequate above ground storage, which would provide more ecological benefits in line with Everglades restoration goals. We are very pleased however that the law provides training programs and preference for Lakeside residents to secure jobs building the new reservoir. We hope that this is just the beginning of serious efforts to transition the Lakeside communities to a diversified, stronger economy that protects its vast natural resources and public health.”
Carl Hiaasen, in the Miami Herald, wrote, "Cautious praise for the compromise passage of Senate Bill 10 is deserved. Celebration would be foolish.”

During the legislative session, Big Sugar enlisted more than 100 lobbyists — a greater number that sitting state senators — to roam the hallways and bars.

During the 2015/2016 winter, the pollution flowing west through the Caloosahatchee River was as polluted and dangerous as the water to the east coast. 
A sweetener was added to obtain Big Sugar’s assent: permission to use public dollars to create water storage and treatment facilities on private lands.  There is still no clear explanation for why this legislation included private lands, water storage and public funding to engineer new ways to sell rainfall to the public. Not even environmental organizations can explain it, other than to agree: this state law points Florida in an entirely new direction: allowing Florida’s biggest private property owners to sell rainfall that falls on their lands, after treatment regimes that the public may have to fund, back to the public. But that’s not all.

A decade ago, Big Sugar supported the Florida branch of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a pro-property rights foundation, to lay the groundwork against eminent domain because the industry knows better than anyone in public or private life that there probably is no other way to fix the Everglades, after all the Rube Goldberg work-arounds have been tried and failed, than to return sugarcane fields to highly engineered wetlands recovery systems.

With a stroke of the pen, Gov. Scott delivered the ultimate prize to Big Sugar: a prohibition against eminent domain in the Everglades Agricultural Area while at the same time providing for the termination of the US Sugar option that would have placed 187,000 acres in public ownership.

One last part of the new law: an extraordinary provision that requires government to end leases on lands owned by the public under the following condition; to not only pay Big Sugar for both crops and waste product it has produced, but "to compensate (sic) for any documented, unamortized planting costs, and any unamortized capital costs associated with the lease and incurred before notice.” So in other words, the capital investments of a corporation are being attached to a lease — and if that lease on lands already owned by the public is broken, then taxpayers have to pay for the portion of machinery, plant and capital equipment that might have been used to farm on that land, once or twice a year.

Who is going to decide what is a fair allocation of capital costs on an individual lease? If there is no requirement for public disclosure, the question could be asked another way: what state employee would dare to bicker with Big Sugar over its profit?

Closing off eminent domain plus terminating the US Sugar option, plus mandating “willing” termination of existing leases by Big Sugar on public lands, adds up to a twelve foot deep reservoir costing a billion dollars that risks leaving Floridians, a decade ago, where they are today.

That's a different outcome than expressed by Senator Negron on the signing of the new law by Gov. Rick Scott on May 12, 2017:  “I look forward to the work ahead as we continue to work with Governor Scott and our federal partners to expedite the planning and construction of this critical project,” Negron said. “Together, we will end the plague of toxic blue-green algae that harms the health of our citizens and destroys our environment and our economy, once and for all.”



(Part Three, conclusion, tomorrow)