Last Wednesday, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida announced a
revision to the agreement between the state of Florida and U.S. Sugar, the
company from which the state is buying thousands of acres of land near the
Everglades. The original agreement, proposed last June, called for the state to
purchase 187,000 acres of land and various assets from the company for $1.75
billion. U.S. Sugar would have continued to use the land and would have stayed
in business for six years, after which it would have closed its doors and turned
over its assets.
The land lies south of Lake
Okeechobee and north of Everglades National Park; the plan was—and still is—for
the state to restore flows between the lake and the Everglades, bringing the
region closer to its natural drainage pattern. For years, agriculture caused the
water to be diverted, altering the ecosystem of the Everglades.
The new agreement calls for the
state to pay $1.3 billion for 181,000 acres of farmland. U.S. Sugar will keep
some assets including its mill and processing plant, railroad, and other
facilities. There were a couple of different motivations for the change. The
state will spend less money—and therefore take on less debt—at a time when it is
taking in less in property taxes. The decline of financial markets and the
closing of two investment banks that might have helped finance the deal make the
lower payment look like a better option at first glance, although critics say
the state might now be paying too much for the land, since some of the original
price was tied to the assets the company will now retain.
Another driver is that U.S. Sugar
can remain in business rather than putting its 1,700 employees out of work. CEO
Robert Buker has said the company will consider using its facilities to produce
ethanol. It won’t have enough land left to grow the necessary feedstocks but
might consider buying them or leasing land elsewhere in Florida to grow them.
Concerns over the long-term
viability of ethanol aside (see an editorial by Forester’s group editor, John
Trotti, on the subject here, there are still many details to be worked out about how the land will be used,
and whether the state can set aside enough for reservoirs and marshes to have a
significant benefit for the Everglades. Still, even in its modified form the
agreement sets an important precedent for a state acquiring land to protect a
natural area. Let’s hope the eventual results are successful enough to encourage
others to follow.