Home Conservation Front

News Regarding Lake O Reservoir

gettinwetgettinwet Posts: 1,366 Officer
For your reading pleasure - sounds like a good idea but already being tagged a "land" grab:


http://wlrn.org/post/negron-tries-boost-case-water-proposal
There are only so many casts in life, so shut up and fish!!

Replies

  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    I wouldn't worry too much about what the EAA Farmers Spokeswoman says...they are going to fight this thing tooth and nail to the finish line, no different than what they have been doing for the last 30 years.

    We'll be in Tallahassee in support of SB 10 next Wednesday. Hope you see you there!
  • South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

    Prudent for water district to stop 'Glades restoration project until lawsuit resolved

    June 3, 2008

    By Eric Buermann

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-everglades03forumsbjun03,0,7126596.story

    Water is the heart and soul of Everglades restoration. Ecosystem recovery depends, first and foremost, on water flow that will mimic conditions once found across much of South Florida. Restoring water flows to natural areas, at appropriate times and amounts, is essential to restoration success.

    To achieve this, the South Florida Water Management District is expanding water storage capacity with projects at key sites throughout the South Florida ecosystem. One of these is the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir located south of Lake Okeechobee, which, at 25 square miles, will be one of the largest above-ground reservoirs in the world.

    The reservoir is designed to hold enough water from Lake Okeechobee and the surrounding basin to reduce harmful discharges to the coastal estuaries and help achieve better water levels for a healthier lake. It will improve water quality by capturing stormwater runoff and optimize the performance of constructed treatment wetlands. Already, a seepage canal has been dug, muck has been cleared and a rock-crushing plant mobilized to provide on-site materials. The next step is to build the 22-mile-long, 29-feet-high embankment that will surround the reservoir.

    Last year, construction of this reservoir became the subject of a lawsuit. A challenge to the construction permit issued to the district by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Foundation and Sierra Club almost a year after construction began. It addresses the permitting and procedural steps for the Everglades project design and construction — not the significant environmental benefits this massive storage reservoir will provide. Unfortunately, the project cannot lawfully be built if the court agrees with the permit challenge.

    At its meeting last month, the district's nine-member governing board determined that it is prudent to resolve these outstanding legal issues before proceeding with the next construction phase. With that in mind, the board temporarily suspended the embankment contract, which at a public investment of $331 million represents the largest outlay in the entire EAA Reservoir construction effort.

    We recognize that difficult and bold decisions are at times needed to protect taxpayer interests. The board has wisely determined that a monthly suspension fee of $1.9 million for up to six months is a small investment in the security of expending almost 200 times that amount for embankment construction. Likewise, a temporary suspension to safeguard the use of public funds over the long term is a minimal delay when measured against the reservoir's four-year construction timeline. To begin embankment construction and then stop, based on the court's findings, could expose Florida taxpayers to an additional cost of up to $50 million.

    During suspension, the district will work to resolve the litigation. The contractor has agreed to retain key personnel and essential equipment on site and will hold fast the embankment's contract price during the suspension period.

    Be assured that the district remains fully committed to resolving these legal issues, to protecting South Florida's natural resources, to safeguarding the public's fiscal investments and to moving forward with our world-class Everglades restoration efforts.

    Eric Buermann is chairman of the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board.



    This was the result of ENVIRONMENTAL groups opposing the reservoir in 2006, 2007

    It cost us a lost $300 million and part of that was $1.9 million per month to hold off construction while they decided what to do
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,234 AG
    bullsugar just wants to throw taxpayer money around like pimpdaddy making it rain at the stripclub.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,097 AG
    At the risk of becoming political, do you think the current regime in Washington is likely to take a pro-environmental anti-business stance on this?

    If this is going to be fixed anytime soon, it's going to need to be led by Tallahassee, don't you think?
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    Fixing our broken plumbing is pro-business - best example is our tourist economy, which is a $118 billion/yr industry and the water is our top attraction. Agriculture plays an important role in our economy as well and provides a lot of jobs, but as an economic generator it falls far behind at $6 billion/yr.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/agriculture/dying-on-the-vine-floridas-shriveling-agriculture-industry-cant-shake-the/2305711

    With that said, yes this is definitely a state issue - the cost of Everglades restoration is a 50/50 partnership between the state and the feds, with the state teeing up the projects and the feds responsible for half the costs.

    Also important to mention that nobody was making noise about job losses when US Sugar was trying to sell their entire company to the state in 2008. Or when they tried to develop a large portion of their land to residential and commercial through the "Sugar Hill" project.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article1988685.html
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
    I'll bet the people who work on that land were making noise. I'd like to see what all the paid lobbyist for Bullsugar would say if someone wanted to take their property away from them. I suspect it would be way different that what they say about taking away someones home now.
  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 2,487 Captain
    pottydoc wrote: »
    I'll bet the people who work on that land were making noise. I'd like to see what all the paid lobbyist for Bullsugar would say if someone wanted to take their property away from them. I suspect it would be way different that what they say about taking away someones home now.

    The land needs to be taken by eminent domain if this reservoir is a real answer to the problem. Bull sugar is a tax fleecing program like we have seen through the entire history of this state. Crooks and con artists with just another angle.
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    Bullsugar.org does not have a single paid lobbyist. Sorry, try again.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
    DPreston wrote: »
    Bullsugar.org does not have a single paid lobbyist. Sorry, try again.
    Ummm, I know one personally. Maybe his title is something else, but he is most definatly a lobbyist. You want me to pm you his name?
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    "all the paid lobbyist for Bullsugar"

    "I know one personally. Maybe his title is something else, but he is most definitely a lobbyist."

    These are two VERY different statements.
  • gettinwetgettinwet Posts: 1,366 Officer
    DPreston wrote: »
    "all the paid lobbyist for Bullsugar"

    "I know one personally. Maybe his title is something else, but he is most definitely a lobbyist."

    These are two VERY different statements.

    There is no doubt the sugar industry in Florida is heavily involved in politics to protect their own interests. So why the argument over semantics?
    There are only so many casts in life, so shut up and fish!!
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    Bullsugar.org is not the sugar industry - we are anything but. We are a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization dedicated to stopping the toxic discharges east and west, and re-hydrating the Everglades and FL Bay. Any attempt to try to paint us as a large group of "paid lobbyists" is simply not accurate. We are a small group of fishermen and people that love the water who hate what we see happening to it as a result of what is basically legalized bribery of our politicians. www.bullsugar.org for more info.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
    DPreston wrote: »
    Bullsugar.org is not the sugar industry - we are anything but. We are a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization dedicated to stopping the toxic discharges east and west, and re-hydrating the Everglades and FL Bay. Any attempt to try to paint us as a large group of "paid lobbyists" is simply not accurate. We are a small group of fishermen and people that love the water who hate what we see happening to it as a result of what is basically legalized bribery of our politicians. www.bullsugar.org for more info.
    So, you have no paid employees? Especially not the guy we see as one of your spokespersons on tv? And I never said you were a "large group of paid lobbyists". I only made the point that if your whatever you want to call them employees were facing having their homes taken from them, that they would probably have a very different attitude about it. As would your membership, if in the same boat. And rightfully so.
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    pottydoc wrote: »
    And I never said you were a "large group of paid lobbyists".
    pottydoc wrote: »
    "all the paid lobbyist for Bullsugar"

    I don't believe I ever stated that we don't have paid employees. Of course we do. Are you insinuating that you are ok with sugar spending tens of millions of dollars paying our politicians, hiring national PR and ad agencies, and an army of professional lobbyists in Tallahassee (they have over 70 working for them right now - we do not have a single one) to maintain the status quo, but there is somehow something wrong with us having a handful of paid employees - all people that have been affected by our water issues and some that have had to seek other ways to pay their bills because of them?
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
    I'm not insinuating anything. Quit putting words in my mouth. I tried to call you twice yesterday, at the time you asked me to call. I got no answer. I left a message and said you were welcome to call me. I got no call. You asked me in a pm why I had a problem with Bull Sugar. People posting crud like you did above where you accuse me of things that are flat not true is a tried and true method for BS. I can give you plenty more, and, I promise you that there are plenty of other people that are just as concerned with our water quality as you are that have the same issues with BS as I do. If you still want to talk to me off line, I got no issue with that. I promise you it will be a civil conversation. I think you might be suprised at my views, and myth even learn something about why there are folks who are so for our water, but so against Bull Sugar.
    I'm in the truck for the next hour, you have my number from yesterday's calls.
  • pottydocpottydoc Port Saint JoePosts: 4,703 Captain
    DPreston wrote: »
    I don't believe I ever stated that we don't have paid employees. Of course we do. Are you insinuating that you are ok with sugar spending tens of millions of dollars paying our politicians, hiring national PR and ad agencies, and an army of professional lobbyists in Tallahassee (they have over 70 working for them right now - we do not have a single one) to maintain the status quo, but there is somehow something wrong with us having a handful of paid employees - all people that have been affected by our water issues and some that have had to seek other ways to pay their bills because of them?
    The two statements you quoted do not say the same thing. " all the paid lobbyist" could mean al. Of one, or all of 200 or more. I did not say you had a large group of paid lobbyists. You just tried to make something I said into something it wasn't. Again.
  • DPrestonDPreston Posts: 153 Officer
    Happy to discuss offline - sorry I missed you yesterday, will try you again this afternoon.
Sign In or Register to comment.