Bills would require voter approval for U.S. Sugar deal

TALLAHASSEE — Plans to spend $1.34 billion to purchase 180,000 acres from U.S. Sugar Corp. for Everglades restoration should be approved by South Florida voters, a pair of lawmakers insist as they work to slow down a deal between state water managers and the mega-landowner.

Citing the need for more public oversight, Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, has introduced a measure (SB 1436) to require voter approval should any water management district want to levy certificates of participation to make purchases.

The bill comes in response to a proposal that the South Florida Water Management District would use the financial instruments to purchase the property from the sugar producer as part of the state’s multi-billion Everglades restoration effort. With that kind of money flying around, Bennett said, voters should be more involved.

“They are appointed, not elected and their authority is way too broad when it comes to spending that kind of money,” Bennett said.

If the bill is passed, residents in the 16-county South Florida Water Management District, including Lee and Collier counties, would vote on the everglades purchase.

Rep. Denise Grimsley, R-Lake Placid, and chairwoman of the House Government Accountability Act Council is expected to file a companion measure, said Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers.

Williams, too, supports Bennett’s efforts, having been at odds with the district over citizen oversight and the ability of the body to tax property owners without seeking voter approval.

“I think it’s a good idea to have voters involved,” Williams said.

In December the water management board on a 4-3 vote approved the purchase of the parcel, a 300 square mile region. The deal is part of a larger plan to store water south of Lake Okeechobee instead of releasing it down the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River.

The releases overwhelm the natural balance of the Caloosahatchee estuary, pushing out marine life, and have been blamed for devastating blooms of toxic algae.

The contract requires the state to lease much of the land back to U.S. Sugar for seven years at $50 an acre, far below market price. It also requires the district to have financing in place by September.

The deal has come under intense criticism from U.S. Sugar’s competitors, including Florida Crystals. In December, the company filed a complaint in Palm Beach Circuit Court saying the bonds the water management district plans to use to finance the deal can’t legally be tapped for the purchase because it would “bail out a private company.”

In issuing the bonds, the district would be “abusing its authority,” the complaint says.

Environmental groups, however, are largely on board with the agreement and say Bennett’s bill is a “deal killer” that would render the billions already spent on Everglades restoration far less meaningful. The state already owns huge tracks of land in the region and Draper said the U.S. Sugar purchase is a natural fit.

“This $1 billion makes those other investments work,” said Eric Draper, deputy director of Audubon Florida. “This allows us to get the water from one place to another. The proposal kills the deal without proposing a viable alternative.”

Williams however, has complained that the asking price is too high, a sentiment echoed by many as Florida sees the price of land plummet following its post-hurricane boom.

“She’s been clear she doesn’t like it around the price issue,” Draper said.