It has begun, the most intensive ecological restoration project in world history. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) will include 68 projects estimated to take 36 years and $7.8 billion to complete. The federal government as agreed to pay half of the costs and state, tribal, and local agencies will cover the rest. The sugar-farmers, a large source of the destructive pollutants, have been ordered by the Everglades Forever Act of 1994 to contribute no more then $320 million, only 4% of the total restoration costs. This policy, along with an extensive history of sugar-farming subsidies, continues to cause extensive damages to the Everglades and hinder restoration. Removal of sugar subsidies and increased taxation of sugar-farmers are necessary in CERP policy in order for a successful completion of the CERP goal "to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades."
Sugar subsidies began in the 20th century in the form of massive drainage efforts in the soon to be Everglades Agricultural Area. In the early 1900’s only 13,000 acres of sugarcane was grown because it had failed as a commercial crop several times in the 18th century. It had failed because sugarcane is a dry land crop and needs a water table two feet below the surface, as opposed to the historic level of the Everglades (2 feet above surface). By 1920, four massive, expensive canals had been dredged from Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean, which dropped Lake Okeechobee from about 22 feet to about 18 feet. This allowed sugarcane to be cultivated by large, politically connected, corporate-scale farms. Then in the 1940’s the federal Army Corps of Engineers took over the reclamation effort. A complicated system of levees and hydraulics was built to tame the seasonal variations in water flow and further modify the Everglades for agriculture. The estimated annual expense to American taxpayers was over $50 million, for "Washington to keep the Everglades drained in the wet season and irrigated in the dry." Without this drainage effort the sugar-industry would be limited to a few thousand acres.
Soon after the first canes were planted it was realized that not only did the soil lack the nutrients needed but also the Florida climate lacked the warmth the cane was used to. These factors cause the cost to produce a metric ton of raw sugar to be $150 more then in places such as Australia. This differential lead congress in 1934 to propose the Sugar Act, known as the Jones-Costigan Act, to protect domestic sugar production and produce a source of revenue. It provided for tariffs on imported sugar and quotas for each country limiting the amount of import. This idea of tariffs and quotas continued in the form of various amendments and caused a domestic market price of 57 cents per pound raw in 1974, the highest price to date. At the end of 1974 the amended acts expired and were not renewed. The prices began to fall in just three years to 8 cents a pound. This prompted the government to initiate price support programs. In 1977 an interim price support program was implemented by the Secretary of Agriculture and was adopted in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1977, which established a price of 13.5 cents per pound. Various farm bills were passed in subsequent years to not only continue but raise the level of price support to its current level of 18 cents per pound. In 2002, President Bush signed The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which extends the price supports at 18 cents per pound raw until 2008, is estimated to have a total cost of more than $27 Billion with nearly 2 billion going to Big Sugar. Current global market price for raw sugar is about 8 cents per pound.
Sugar farming in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) is a large source of destructive pollutants and blocks the natural flow of water from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. The EAA covers an area of 700,00 acres on which about 450,000 acres are sugarcane fields. The primary pollutant is the phosphorus rich fertilizers that are needed to grow sugarcane in the nutrient poor Everglades. These fertilizers cause excessive amounts of phosphorus to runoff the EAA into the Everglades. The natural level accepted among many biologists is between 5 and 7 parts per billion (ppb) with a maximum threshold of around 10 ppb. Unfortunately it has reached levels as high as 500 parts per billion (ppb). This high phosphorus level facilitates the growth of nutrient loving cattails in place of the native saw grass at a rate of around 50 acres per day.
Water diversion has also become a large source of problems for the Everglades. Everyday more than a billion gallons of water is diverted away from the Everglades for both agricultural and municipal use. This has starved the much need 50 miles wide river that once flowed from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to the Florida bay. Not only has this caused problems for the native wildlife within the "Sea of Grass" but also it has starved the Florida Bay of freshwater, turning it dangerously saline.
Another effect of the sugar farmers on the Everglades is the destruction and removal of the peat that has occurred because of the intensive sugar practices. As the water table dropped, the peat dried, shrank and blew away. Additionally, the once oxygen poor soil began to oxidized and was consumed by aerobic bacteria. "In the past 75 years more than six feet of peat have disappeared from the Everglades." The rate of soil subsidence has reached one inch per year and farmers may soon strike bedrock.
The sugar farmer’s political influence is extremely powerful not only in Florida but also in Washington. They are lead by the Fanjul brothers who run Florida Crystals Corporation. Their political clout comes primarily from the hug sums of many they contribute to political campaigns and their large lobbying efforts. "Between the years of 1990 and 2004 the sugar industry… has sent $19.3 million in political contributions to Washington." The sugar growers have spent tens of millions of dollars on local elections. In 1997, "the sugar industry spent $22.7 million to defeat a statewide referendum." One brother, Alfie is the Democrat and the other, Pepe is the Republican in an attempt to gain bipartisan support. Recently "Big Sugar has unleashed a battalion of 46 lobbyists-including two former Florida House speakers and two former gubernatorial chiefs of staff." Alfonso Fanjul Jr., has even lobbied President Bill Clinton against a proposal by Al Gore to charge Big Sugar a 1 cent a penny tax to raise funds for the Everglades. This came out in the Starr Report, as Clinton’s breakup with Monica Lewinsky was interrupted by a 22-minute phone call from Alfie.
The primary responsibility of the massive restoration efforts in the Everglades will lie with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The reasoning behind this is because the ACOE built and operates the current structure of levies and hydraulics which contains 1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and almost 200 water control structures. The ACOE has a current annual budget of $4 billion, from which a total of $400 million since 2001 has been spent on ecosystem restoration in the Everglades. The Corps primary source of political influence is the expertise and experience it has with water diversion in the Everglades. This is why the Corps has been chosen to lead CERP implementation with cooperation from local and federal agencies. Many technical aspects of the restoration will be largely influenced by ACOE and the federal government will use the ACOE’s political clout to make sure the project is an effective use of its resources.
Environmentalists have been lobbying for Everglades Restoration for decades. Until, recently it has had little influence over decisions made in the Everglades. The environmentalists cry for restoration was seen as radical and unfounded. But, now that the damage has been done the decades of cries have turn in to a lobbing effort centered around an "I told you so" effort. The public and congress has begun to listen to the ecosystem expertise that the environmental groups bring to the table. 41 conservation associations, chaired by NPCA and Audubon of Florida, have formed the Everglades Coalition in an effort to form collective lobbying power. Recently during the 19th Annual Everglades Coalition Conference, both Florida’s senators, Bob Graham (D) and Bill Nelson (D), and representatives from both parties showed up to lend their support. A large part of environmental groups political influence on the government comes indirectly from its influence on the public.
The environmentalists have blasted Everglades Forever as an egregious sellout to Big Sugar because it relied on unproven artificial marshes to filter out phosphorus, extended the consent decree's cleanup deadline from 2002 to 2006, and only forced the industry to cover about one-third of its $1 billion cost.
The public has played a large role in the development of Everglades policy. This primary reason for this is the connection of the Everglades to the identity of the people of South Florida. Restoration of the Everglades has gain bi-partisan support amongst the public, which has transferred its way up to the elected officials. Legitimacy and influence for the restoration as come from the public in the form of the passage of a referendum, requiring that Everglades polluters be held primarily responsible for repairing the damage they caused to the ecosystem. A second referendum that sought a penny/pound raw sugar tax failed with only 46% of the vote. The public missed its biggest opportunity to influence how the project would be funded and raise nearly $900 million over the next 25 years. However, the ability of the public to allow these decisions to be kept in their hands and the $22.7 million spent to defeat it speaks to the political influence with public holds in the Everglades restoration.
The federal government has a large stake in the Everglades restoration. This is because the federal government is assuming 50% of the cost of the project. The federal government has also express concern over the latest actions of the State of Florida and several congressional leaders have warned the state that it may remove funding if the project doesn’t continue along its goals. First on substantive grounds because it doesn’t help to rehydrate the Everglades with polluted water, second on procedural grounds because the feds won’t trust working with the state any longer, and third on political grounds because the congressmen would love to have an excuse to pull the funding on a failed swamp.
Many problems with the current CERP policy stem from the reactive solutions it as proposed and in many aspects doesn’t deal with the source, but simply tries to mitigate problems. One attempt is to create an easement of farm runoff retention ponds to reduce the amount of phosphorus making its way to the Everglades. This may be effective at reducing the amount of phosphorus but may be unable to reduce the level below the 10 ppb needed. A further reduction in the amount of phosphorus used and the amount of sugar farming will be needed to obtain a sustainable Everglades. A reduction in farming activities can be achieved through a removal of subsidies thus driving down the inflated profitability of sugar production. Taxpayers are not only being charged for the cleanup through the funding of CERP but also for the pollution through federal price supports.
CERP policy, including the Everglades Forever Act, has been effective at getting a reduction in the amount of phosphorus. "Big sugar, which was required to cut its phosphorus discharges by 25% per year, has cut them by more than 50 percent per year." This has resulted in a phosphorus level of 20 ppb in the runoff, which is under half the level the Everglades Forever Act requires of the sugar growers. The difficulty will come as attempts are made to reduce the level below 10 ppb. Big Sugar has already begun to state that 10 ppb is not feasible and is seeking to pass a new bill to weaken the standard to 15 ppb and move the cleanup deadline from 2006 to 2026.
Problems also arise in the policy relating to how the phosphorus levels are measured. A state commission ruled that the measurements of pollutants could be averaged over time and over different measuring stations. This allows some areas to have dangerously high levels as long as others are below it.
My recommendations are that the policy should include language that holds Big Sugar responsible for the damages that it has done to the Everglades. This should include a removal of price support mechanisms that inflate the amount of sugar being produced in a region that cannot support it. The price support mechanisms could be phased out over time so that the sugar industry would have time to adjust. This phasing out of the price support legislation would not entirely destroy the sugar growers, but it would remove the least efficient sugar growers and get rid of highly inflated profits. Additionally, I would provide for a phosphate fertilizer tax in order to provide revenue for the Everglades restoration. This phosphate tax could be charged to the manufactures of phosphate based fertilizer. This would encourage reduction in use or even elimination of phosphate based fertilizers. A price support elimination and phosphate taxing policy would arguably reduce the amount that Big Sugar would be able to pay for restoration. But I would argue that the reduction in phosphate runoff and the decrease in the overall size of the sugar production area would decrease the costs of CERP by more then the $340 million that Big Sugar currently has be ordered to pay.
The State of Florida’s constitution now requires that those who polluted the Everglades must be held primarily responsible for repairing the damage. Responsibility for repairs should come in the form of dollars. Currently Big Sugar is only being held responsible for 4% of the damages when it is widely known that they have caused move damage then just 4%. An additional short fall of the policy is that it doesn't account for the responsibility of Big Sugar after the 25 years are up. It is naive to think that Big Sugar will be done polluting in 25 years and that the Everglades will be completely restored within the $8 billion budget and 36 year timeframe. Policies need to be but in place that assure the sustainability of the Everglades long into the future. This involves the use to revenue generating policies that link pollution and destruction to the cost of repair.
The proposed bill that has allowed polluters another ten years to meet the deadlines should be reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether the bill is consistent with the national Clean Water Act.
Bibliography
Alvarez, Jose. "Sugar and the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill," Florida Sugarcane Handbook, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SC056
Dougherty, Ryan. "Sugar Deal ‘Glades Restoration," National Parks, Vol. 77 Issue 9/10 (2003) 10-11
Carter, Nicole T. "South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan," CRS Report for Congress, (2002)
Engler, Mark. "Cattail County," New Internationalist 363, (December 2003): 23-24
Grunwald, Michael "Sugar Plum, " New Republic, Vol. 228 Issue 18 (2003): 15-17
Levin, Ted. "Bitter Sweets," E Magazine: The Environmental Magazine, Vol. 14 Issue 4 (Jul/Aug 2003): 34-39
Richey, Warren. "Saving Everglades: Who Should Pay?" Vol. 89 Issue 181 (1997)
Roberts, Paul. "The Sweet Hereafter," Harper’s Magazine Vol. 299 Issue 1794 (1999): 54-68
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and partners, Summary, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), (1999) http://www.evergladesplan.org/pub/restudy_eis.cfm
Contact Us: kalpulli@kalpulli.net
Photography by an Siosalaich, 2005
Kalpulli © 2005