The Everglades Foundation on Monday released a report showing that 76 percent of phosphorous pollution entering the Everglades comes from agricultural operations while that sector pays 24 percent of the cost.
The group says it hopes the findings help Gov. Rick Scott as he negotiates a new Everglades restoration plan with federal agencies. The information also could be used by the Legislature to shift the cost burden more to agricultural interests, Everglades Foundation officials said.
The Everglades ecosystem extends from south of Orlando south to Lake Okeechobee, Everglades National Park and Florida Bay. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from a variety of sources has contributed to some areas of the national park having become choked with cattails.
Sixty-eight percent of Florida voters in 1996 approved a state constitutional amendment requiring that those who cause pollution in the Everglades to be "primarily responsible" for the cost of cleanup. The Everglades Foundation says its report, produced by RTI International, uses public data to help identify who is causing the pollution and who has been paying for the cleanup.
While 24 percent of the money for nutrient removal comes from agricultural sources, 39 percent comes from property taxes collected by the South Florida Water Management District, which operates 45,000 acres of stormwater treatment areas. State and federal governments pay 27 percent and wastewater customers pay 10 percent of the cost.
"I think it's hard to fathom how any honest person could suggest that the big sugar and agricultural interests are complying with the constitutional amendment by picking up only 24 percent of the cost right now," Everglades Foundation Executive Director Kirk Fordham said.
In response, U. S. Sugar Corp., Florida Crystals Corp. and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida issued a statement condemning the Everglades Foundation for producing studies "resulting in hocus pocus economic conclusions."
"The Everglades Foundation’s report is riddled with so many erroneous assumptions, then hedges the conclusions with an equal number of caveats and uncertainties, that it serves no purpose except to throw mud on productive restoration efforts," the statement said.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection in response issued a statement that did not address the cost issues raised in the report. The statement said the report noted progress made on Everglades cleanup and agriculture's role in that effort.
Some sugar industry representatives have said the state should focus more attention on reducing phosphorus and nitrogen pollution in the northern Everglades north of Orlando. But Fordham noted that his group's report says that only about 13 percent of the phosphorus reaching the stormwater treatment areas is coming from Lake Okeechobee.
The Everglades Foundation decided in the fall of 2010 to do the study, so its release after the 2012 legislative session while the governor is negotiating with federal agencies is coincidental, Fordham said.
"I think it really is up to the Legislature to determine how to shift the cost," Fordham said. "If that doesn't take place, then I think taxpayers ought to take a look at whether or not there are other means to guarantee it is enforced."
He added, "Certainly if the question is, is the Everglades Foundation looking to file a lawsuit right now -- the answer is no."
Read key findings of the report at http://www.evergladesfoundation.org/pages/1708. Download the 107-page Everglades Foundation report by clicking here.
Reporter Bruce Ritchie can be reached at britchie@thefloridacurrent.com.