And the only criticism so far has come from a South Florida alt-weekly, the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, which titled its story about the deal "Sugar Daddy" and called the land purchase "stupid" and "irresponsible."
One more thing: The purchase of U.S. Sugar doesn't solve all the Everglades' problems. One big obstacle remains in the way of restoring the flow of water from Lake Okeechobee to the river of grass: the roughly 30,000 acres south of the U.S. Sugar property owned by the Fanjul family and their Flo-Sun companies. In an interview with the New York Times last week, the Fanjul brothers said they were open to the idea of swapping some land with the state to give a route for the water through their property — sort of. The Fanjuls, in fact, said a better idea would be to let them farm on the U.S. Sugar lands once the state owns it, sugarcane that would be fed into their new biomass fuel production facility in Okeelanta.
The wheeling and dealing that might be occurring behind the scenes scares environmentalists.
"It's really important to keep a real close eye on this," said Perry of the Everglades Coalition. "When it gets down to negotiating, the public needs to know what does this agreement look like and are we getting our money's worth? We need to make sure these land swaps and purchases achieve what we want them to achieve. ... and not just trade them off for other development."
The confidential negotiations between the South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Sugar are fast-tracked and must be completed by early September. Randy Smith, a water management district spokesman, said all of the money to pay for the purchase will come from taxpayers in the 16 South Florida counties the district covers. Taxes won't go up to pay for the purchase, district Chief Financial Officer Paul Dumars added, because the agency had already earmarked $100 million a year for Everglades restoration.
As for what kinds of deals water district officials can strike with the Fanjuls, it is anybody's guess. But you have to wonder if the same "pay them off at any cost" strategy will prevail with Flo-Sun's property as it did with U.S. Sugar's.
The secrecy behind the U.S. Sugar agreement has now given rise to legal action. Late last week, former U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen sued to stop the purchase, claiming that it had been illegally brokered in out-of-the-sunshine meetings. Lehtinen helped lead Everglades cleanup efforts, and he told media that he was concerned that too many questions remained unanswered about how the deal would affect other cleanup projects in the river of grass.
Still, the U.S. Sugar deal may be inevitable. In a congratulatory letter to Gov. Crist, well-known Republican environmentalist Nat Reed added this postscript: "Marjory Stoneman Douglas, shortly before her death, bedeviled by the inaction of the board and staff of the South Florida Water Management District to make meaningful changes in the operation of the Everglades Agricultural Area, announced that the only solution was 'to buy them out!' Marjory is looking down on you with a smile on her face."
Full disclosure: As a political consultant, the author was retained to do grassroots and grass-tops organizing on behalf of U.S. Sugar in Tampa Bay during the 1996 "Penny-a-Pound" referendum