State/EPA Everglades Deal: Doubts about Money and Commitment.
OPED from Friends of the Everglades
Alan Farago, FOE president, 305-778-8765
Half a century ago Marjory Stoneman Douglas, founder of Friends of the Everglades, was fiercely skeptical of governmental efforts to restore the fading River of Grass without iron clad assurances to reverse harms done to the Everglades by misguided engineering and agricultural policies.
The new $880 million government plan to treat polluted water dumped by Big Sugar into the Everglades is the result of a federal lawsuit by Friends of the Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe. It is a step in the right direction but for two facts: it lacks funding guarantees for the period of construction and it is also virtually unenforceable due to huge, “lawyers’ loopholes”.
In 2004, Friends sued the US EPA for its manifest and long-standing failure to enforce clean water standards against polluters in the sugar industry who were in clear violation of the 1992 Everglades Forever Act. The Act provides for a strict phosphorus limit of 10 parts per billion for water in the Everglades. Scientists universally agreed that phosphorus – a common component of fertilizers used by Big Sugar was harming the River of Grass. At the time, then Governor Jeb Bush had taken steps to break the agreement to pieces.
Judge Gold agreed with Friends and our co-plaintiff, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, that the EPA and the State of Florida had been derelict in enforcing clean water standards. Finally, more than four years after Judge Gold’s first ruling and with the threat of contempt sanctions looming, a plan has been offered by the Scott’s Administration with the approval of EPA to resolve the Friends’ Clean Water Act lawsuit.
The plan that the State now offers falls short of what EPA believed was necessary to meet Everglades’ pollution goals ($880 million vs. $1.5 billion for a series of new shallow marshes to treat Big Sugar’s chemical pollution). Federal Judge Alan S. Gold, by now an expert on Everglades complexities, has boiled thousands of pages of court records down to these two critical issues: how will the plan be funded and is it enforceable? These are the main questions that will be before the Court at its status conference hearing on July 18, 2012.
It is now for Judge Gold to determine whether this plan comports with his prior rulings and the EPA’s requirements to achieve clean water standards. Along with our environmental colleagues, we are encouraged that the State has at least come forward with a plan to address Everglades water quality problems; not just on the Friends litigation, but through a serious effort to fix water quality problems in the northern Everglades and through an effort to cleanse water in the central Everglades.
On the other hand, Friends doubts the State, the Water District and, particularly, the Legislature are truly committed to this Plan through the necessary funding appropriations. Throughout, Friends believed that the appropriate taxing entity – the South Florida Water Management District – could meet the entire amount required by the EPA plan. The history of the Everglades shows that all three entities have repeatedly thwarted efforts to save the River of Grass from destruction by Big Sugar and others. Can we trust the State, when it is locked, as it now is, in a Congressional battle to eliminate federal Clean Water Act standards in Florida and, once again, supports back-pumping chemically-polluted water from sugar fields into Lake Okeechobee: a dismal practice that Friends fought all the way to the US Supreme Court? Moreover, the Legislature has failed to repeal the 2003 legislation amending the Everglades Forever Act, passed during the Jeb Bush term, by-passing earlier commitments and permitting another decade of harmful Everglades pollution.
On behalf of our members and the people of Florida, Friends of the Everglades will stay the course. We are reminded how President Ronald Reagan described the process of standing down the nuclear arms race: trust, but verify. If we can’t verify, we wonder what the future holds.
Floridians have many reasons to mistrust the motives and purposes of the state legislature and governing boards of the state water management districts. Friends has not forgotten Big Sugar is required to pay for its pollution cleanup under Art. II, Sec. 7 of the Florida Constitution, the “Polluter Pays” provision and not the ad valorem taxpayers of South Florida. So far, what the State and EPA propose is a step in the right direction but lacks the iron clad commitments that Marjory Stoneman Douglas fought for and that our organization is determined to achieve for Florida and the nation’s interest in the Everglades.
Alan Farago, a writer and environmentalist, is president of Friends of the Everglades. http://everglades.org