August 10, 2007
By Andy Reid
Rebuffing Big Sugar's water pleas, water managers on Thursday refused to use Lake Okeechobee to store polluted stormwater that growers wanted to tap for drought-strained crops.
The South Florida Water Management District governing board decided environmental concerns outweighed the benefits of "back-pumping," which redirects water draining off agricultural land back into the lake to store for irrigation, also washing in fertilizers and other pollutants.
Also, the board in a 4-3 vote rejected a compromise to pump in less-polluted water in smaller quantities than full-fledged back-pumping.
"I can't vote for knowingly putting that much pollution into a water body [like] the lake," governing board member Shannon Estenoz said.
Agricultural representatives warned of a looming economic "catastrophe" if the district didn't boost the lake level before the next dry season.
"We can only pray that Mother Nature bails them out of their mistake," Judy Sanchez, spokeswoman for U.S. Sugar Corp., said about the vote. "It's obvious that some of the [board] members have been swayed by the extreme environmental groups that want to harm sugar farmers."
As an alternative to back-pumping, the district agreed to explore storing water on more than 700 acres in Clewiston, old rock pits west of West Palm Beach and the 30,000-acre Holey Land and Rotenberger properties in southwestern Palm Beach County.
"We need a farm relief act of some kind to get them water," governing board Chairman Eric Buermann said. "Flush out the permitting and environmental concerns. ... At least get that ball rolling."
The board also called for more long-term solutions, such as widening and deepening existing canals to store more water.
Agriculture faces an immediate crisis because of the drought and back-pumping provides the only immediate irrigation relief, said board member Malcolm Wade Jr., who works in the sugar industry.
"This is a feel-good motion," Wade said about exploring the long-term possibilities.
On July 3, the lake dipped to its all-time low of 8.82 feet above sea level, and on Thursday it was up to only 9.48 feet. The district contends the lake needs to rise to at least 12.5 feet by November to be normal heading into the dry season.
With the lake at its lowest on record for this time of year, district projections anticipate water supply problems continuing into next year, raising the prospect of the first back-to-back years of water shortages since the 1980s.
That would leave the lake, South Florida's primary backup water supply, with less water to replenish urban well fields, the Everglades and the irrigation canals tapped by agriculture.
The state projects economic impacts of a drought continuing into next year could hit $1 billion.
"You are looking at crop failure in the Everglades Agricultural Area," Sanchez said.
Back-pumping opponents argued that the amount of water saved would not be worth the environmental damage.
"Back-pumping is in direct conflict with Everglades restoration," said Sara Fain, of the National Parks Conservation Association.
Phosphorus, nitrogen and other nutrient-rich pollutants that wash in with back-pumped water could lead to a "dead zone" in the lake, resulting from algae blooms and low oxygen levels that kill fish, insects and other parts of the lake's food chain.
Rejecting back-pumping signaled a stronger environmental focus for the district, coming from newly appointed members of the governing board.
The four votes against back-pumping came from Estenoz, Buermann, Melissa Meeker and Charles Dauray, all appointed this year by Gov. Charlie Crist.
Of the three votes for the back-pumping compromise, the only Crist appointee was Patrick Rooney Jr.
Harkley Thornton and Nicolás Gutiérrez Jr., both holdover appointees by former Gov. Jeb Bush, also voted for back-pumping.
Wade abstained because of his sugar connections, and long-serving board member Michael Collins was absent.
Thornton said the board had heard the same environmental concerns in the past, but had used back-pumping when needed, such as the during the drought in 2001.
"You are getting ready to hurt agriculture by your vote," Thornton said about board's opposition to the scaled-down back-pumping plan. "It's a vote against compromise and balancing those interests."
Dauray shot back that approving back-pumping in the past didn't solve agriculture's long-term irrigation needs and doing it again wouldn't be worth the lake damage.
"Obviously for the last [few] years you didn't listen," Dauray said to Thornton.
Despite the decision not to use back-pumping in this instance, board members were unwilling to abandon the practice.
The board unanimously agreed to challenge a federal judge's ruling this year that the district needs a federal permit before back-pumping. The district contends that violates the state's control over its own waterways. The district also plans to apply for a permit to preserve its right to pump.