The NYT reports that Florida’s ambitious Everglades restoration plan, as actually implemented, may do more to help ag-giant US Sugar than to restore and protect the Everglades. Although heralded when first announced, Florida has had a hard time following through on the plan.
the governor’s ambitious plan to reclaim the river of grass, as the famed wetlands are known, is instead on track to rescue the fortunes of United States Sugar.The proposal was downsized only five months after it was announced. By April 2009, amid the deepening recession, the state said it could afford to purchase only 72,800 acres of United States Sugar’s land, for $536 million. The company would stay in business and the state would retain the option of buying the remaining 107,000 acres at a future date.
United States Sugar dictated many of the terms of the deal as state officials repeatedly made decisions against the immediate needs of the Everglades and the interests of taxpayers, an examination of thousands of state e-mail messages and records and more than 60 interviews showed.
Efforts to restore the Everglades have picked up urgency in the last decade: the sprawling subtropical wetland, the only ecosystem of its kind, is dying for lack of clean water. Many environmentalists remain convinced that Mr. Crist’s deal with United States Sugar, even in its downsized form, offers the Everglades its best hope.
But documents and interviews suggest that the price tag and terms of the deal could set back Everglades restoration for years, or even decades.
The article is particularly unflattering to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, noting his close political ties to US Sugar’s attorneys and quoting former Gov. Jeb Bush’s criticism of his successor, and highlights the sugar giant’s political influence. It seems it was rather easy for the government to subsidize Everglades destruction. Successful Everglades restoration will be a much more difficult task.
UPDATE: More from Holly Doremus at Legal Planet.
ChrisIowa says:
I think you mean “destruction.” “Restruction” sounds like a good word for the restoration they’re trying to do now.
[Oops! Fixed. Thx. -- JHA]
March 8, 2010, 9:27 amMike says:
This is no surprise to Floridians. Charlie Crist owed Big Sugar a lot for helping him get elected, and he had an opportunity to give them a few billion and make the environmentalists happy at the same time. The only surprise was the initial reaction in the media, which seemed to think spending a few billion on some worthless swamp land was a good idea. The comparisons to Yellowstone are especially humorous. When I drive down Alligator Alley I am constantly reminded of the beauty of Yellowstone.
March 8, 2010, 9:42 amHouston Lawyer says:
I am disappointed that Al Gore didn’t manage to get a piece of this environmental scam. I though he knew all the angles.
March 8, 2010, 10:08 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
If they wanted to ‘save’ the glades, why not just use eminent domain?
March 8, 2010, 10:16 amPKSully says:
The price seems insanely high at nearly $7,500 per acre. For comparison, a fund I’m in recently paid $1,150 an acre for a large tract of timberland in Tennessee and Kentucky that has an actual revenue stream.
March 8, 2010, 10:24 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
Subsidised agriculture seems to be addictive, with similar results as a junkie at a pawn shop.
March 8, 2010, 11:21 amRandy says:
Mike: “The only surprise was the initial reaction in the media, which seemed to think spending a few billion on some worthless swamp land was a good idea.”
The Everglades are a worthless swamp?
March 8, 2010, 11:35 amOSU3L says:
Will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the senate primary.
March 8, 2010, 11:39 amcubanbob says:
Washington could easily solve this problem by simply removing sugar quotas on the Philippines and the caribbean countries ( friendly countries, not Cuba). At that point without sugar subsidies and quotas the companies would quite glad to sell the land back to either the state or the federal government.
March 8, 2010, 11:56 amJoe T. Guest says:
The real cost of the sugar subsidies/tariffs scheme became clear to me this last weekend. I tried some of that Old School Pepsi sweetened with cane sugar.
Bloddy Hell! That stuff tastes great. It isn’t as mucky on the palate as the corn syrup-sweetened ‘new school’ Pepsi. I’m looking forward to trying the cane sugar-sweetened Mountain Dew in the near future.
March 8, 2010, 12:09 pmPKSully says:
“The Everglades are a worthless swamp?” Not worthless but not more than $1,500 per acre and less than that if it wasn’t for sugar subsidies.
March 8, 2010, 12:13 pmAnti Federal Interventionist says:
The Everglades are a worthless swamp?
Yes. If restoring the Everglades was worth something, private interests would do it without government involvement. Drain it, pave it over, and build a new community.
March 8, 2010, 12:16 pmAnti Federal Interventionist says:
The Everglades are a worthless swamp?
Yes. If restoring the Everglades was worth something, private interests would do it without government involvement. Drain it, pave it over, and build a new community.
March 8, 2010, 12:16 pmRPT says:
Do you know anything about the Florida ecosystem and water issues?
March 8, 2010, 12:44 pmRPT says:
Has Rubio taken a position or made any comments on the issue?
March 8, 2010, 1:03 pmPeter says:
After having reviewed extensive documents, conducted on site investigations, and observed the subject, I have concluded that Charlie Crist is the most oily, dissembling, dihonest schemer in American politics. Not really corrupt, just congenitally dishonest and opportunistic.
It is a source of painful regret to me that his career only has about ten months left. Perhaps he could move to Calif, where his skills and mushy rent-seeking, corp welfare brand of Republicanism might still be appreciated.
When we amend the Const. to fix the other problems this country has gotten itself into, we can throw in a clause prohibiting subsidies for agriculture.
Ironically, what was arguably the first Sup Ct ruling on the spending power q arose out of a subsidy for sugar growers provided in the Tariff of 1890. I forget the name of the case. In truth, the court sort of dodged the question.
March 8, 2010, 1:12 pmerp says:
Peter, right on about Crist, but we don’t have to amend the Constitution, just stop electing people like him and the rest of the left wingers doing well by doing good. Remove all government subsidies/entitlements/grants/loans/programs and not only from agriculture.
Let everything sink or swim on its merits and we could balance the budget over the weekend.
Poor Charlie, Obama didn’t call him to DC, he’s no longer the gov and he’ll never be a senator (at least not from Florida), so what will he and his lovely bride do now?
March 8, 2010, 2:48 pmCJColucci says:
Will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the senate primary.
Only if the question of who will be a bigger whore for Big Sugar becomes an issue primary voters actually care about rather than something they take for granted.
March 8, 2010, 3:36 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Sugar dollars and anti-Castro nuts seem to make Florida one strange political swamp.
If Floridians run out of drinking water, perhaps they will pay more attention to the Everglades issues and to political influence and corruption.
But, as Fred Phelps would say, it’s their funeral.
March 8, 2010, 4:01 pmdew says:
Wow. The going rate for raw upland around here (eastern MA, usually not considered a cheap part of the country) is $5,000-$15,000 depending on how easy it is to develop. Upland along a road with access to utilities is much more of course. Undevelopable land (like swampy land) – maybe $1K-$2K/acre, depending on whether some bits are usable for anything.
So I agree, that’s some pretty pricey swampland.
March 8, 2010, 4:15 pmMike says:
Pretty much, at least to private parties. You can’t profitably grow anything there. The only reason Big Sugar was making money there is because of large subsidies. You can grow sugar much cheaper elsewhere, and sugar is I believe the only crop in the glades.
March 8, 2010, 4:21 pmYou can’t really build anything there in a cost effective manner either. I suppose it has some value for people who want to hunt pythons, but you can only do that during limited periods of time. The only value the everglades has is its ability to retain flood waters. The water there is not really good for drinking as it requires very expensive filtering to get the phosphate out before it can be consumed. If anything, we should have used the state’s taking powers and paid a few hundred dollars an acre for the land. Without government subsidies, it is not worth any more than that to a private party.
Peter says:
Perhaps Charlie and Katherine Harris can go into business together. Perhaps a bar in Key West. Right on the beach. They can call it “Washed Up” or “Used Republicans.” Electing a new crowd will not end corp welfare. When the agents hired by the principal repeatedly abuse the authority given them, you rewrite the agency agreement before hiring someone else–you dont just go out and hire yet another agent and expect him or her to do anything different.
March 8, 2010, 4:58 pmflyovertard says:
The restoration program won’t drain the everglades – exactly the opposite. Hundreds of miles of canals were dug at the beggining of the last century to drain the area for other uses (such as for sugar). The restoration would essentially fill the drainage canals resulting in a larger area of swamp. I’ve conducted some work on the coupled surface water/groundwater modeling code (peripherally) – lots of money spent with only speculative benefit to the overall ecosystem (IMO).
March 8, 2010, 5:11 pmjccamp says:
I think the chief issue now is – and when isn’t this the issue – money and funding. The South Florida Water Management District – the organization which will actually have to pay the bills – can’t afford the purchase as proposed, even the third, far smaller purchase, and simultaneously afford to continue normal operations. SFWMD is taxpayer funded naturally, but there isn’t support to increase the taxpayer onus and make up the deficit should the purchase be made. At the same time, very expensive incremental Everglades improvement projects have been abandoned (after significant expenditure) to chase the sugar land purchase, which now seems like it cannot happen, at least, not without a huge windfall from somewhere (hint: how can they turn this into a Federally funded stimulus package?).
By the way, this has turned into a multi-sided cat fight, with the Florida Indian tribes arguing against much of this re-flooding of the Everglades, environmentalists arguing against using pumps to move the water south and against construction to elevate some east-west roadways (which blocked the same water flow), the State of Florida arguing some incoherent position depending on the size of the check for U S Sugar, etc. Farmers and the Corps of Engineers are arguing with everyone else about the use of Lake Okeechobee and the associated canals to prevent flooding, while fertilizer run-off into the lagoons and estuaries is ruining the in-shore seacoast, etc.
But the escaped pythons are apparently doing fine.
Crist wanted to ride this into the Senate, but the bottom is falling out just a few months too early, and he might still be Governor Crist when the bill comes due for all his poor decision making.
March 8, 2010, 8:39 pmED Maven says:
It is noteworthy even if unmentioned here that the Everglades Swamp was reduced to its present condition by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, particulatrly by the Corps’ flood control and other workls that channelized the southward water flow and kept the water from spreading into the swamp.
March 8, 2010, 11:33 pmGideon’s Trumpet » Blog Archive » The Everglades Deal in Trouble says:
[...] Follow up. For additional discussion of this topic on the Volokh Conspiracy blog go to http://volokh.com/2010/03/08/saving-the-everglades-or-saving-us-sugar/comment-page-1/#comment-767580 [...]
March 8, 2010, 11:35 pmwedding unity candles says:
Comfortabl y, the post is really the greatest on this notable topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your forthcoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. De lightful work and much success in your business endeavors!
March 17, 2010, 12:07 amAmanda Nettles says:
The Everglades was given the title of a national park around 1947 in order to protect the depleting ecosystem of southern Florida. This park attracts attention from nature enthusiasts, fishermen, and hunters who seem to enjoy the remote and rigorous terrain. It is not like other national parks found around the United States, this park is a swampy wilderness filled with a numerous amount of endangered animal and plant species. Animals like the American crocodile and the Florida Panther, which only live in or near the murky waters of the Everglades instead of anywhere else in the United States. Many animals are at risk because hunters and fishermen have abused their privileges by over consuming or killing endangered species out of fear. Also, boat propellers tear seaweed and destroying the bottom of the Everglades. For the past century, the water flow into the national park had traumatically altered due to human interference. Though, some government policies have been set forth in order to begin conservation of the national park, the Everglades is continuously depleting along with the animal and plant life. The increase in human population and interference is to blame. A restoration in the old levees and a no tolerance restriction on hunting should be mandated as soon as possible in order to save this unique national park.
March 22, 2010, 7:14 pmWong-Toi says:
where do i opt in to join the email list
June 29, 2010, 3:40 am