In June, Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, announced that U.S. Sugar Corp. (the nation's largest sugar producer) and the state were close to finalizing an agreement on the purchase of U.S. Sugar's 300 square miles of Everglades holding.

Environmentalists like Kirk Fordham of the Everglades Foundation were literally jumping for joy. The "River of Grass" (the name given by environmental activist Marjory Stoneman Douglas) has been depleted by more than half since the early 1900s, when it covered more than 11,000 square miles of southern Florida real estate, sweeping majestically into the ocean.  

U.S. Sugar, founded in 1932, has diverted watersheds and despoiled a pristine wilderness - all part of the price of doing business in an essential commodity, the owners have argued. In the next six years, the company will divest its holdings after being driven to near bankruptcy by duty-free sugar imports and cheaper sugar production overseas.

Viewed from this perspective, the deal looks like a win-win. U.S. Sugar gets out of a losing proposition to the tune of $1.75 billion. The Everglades gets back 187,000 acres.  However, as one writer points out, the land valuation ($9,875 per acre) is absurd. These acres are unimproved, in the middle of nowhere and - while perhaps representing the last best hope of Everglades's restoration - have no commercial value.

The writer further suggests the unreasonable valuation is a sop from a Republican state to similarly aligned business interests. Campaign finance disclosures confirm that, in the first quarter of 2008, U.S. Sugar gave $70,000 to the Republican Party of Florida. The Democrats got a stingy $5,000.

The land sale is to be finalized in November. U.S. Sugar would then have an additional six years to continue farming and phase out its operations. After that, 1,700 workers will have to find other jobs, in either tourism or agriculture - the state's two largest industries.

Presumably the South Florida Water Management District, a state agency, will make the purchase from property taxes earmarked for Everglades's restoration. From Lake Okeechobee, water managers would build a network of treatment areas and reservoirs around the natural marshes to filter and store the water before sending it south to the "sea of grass" at the southern end of Florida. This - a direct lake/Everglades connection - has long been the hope of environmentalists.

"It was a really well-kept secret. I think the Pentagon would be jealous of how well it was kept," said Susan Kennedy, executive director of the Everglades Coalition on the land deal.

This secrecy is part of the problem, charges attorney Dexter Lehtinen, who argues that the deal was illegally brokered in closed-door meetings in defiance (or ignorance) of Florida's Sunshine Law, which mandates open government via advance notice of government meetings and their agendas. Lehtinen, who himself leads efforts to restore the Everglades, filed a lawsuit against the state.

Lehtinen is not opposed to the deal per se, but to the fact that there are no answers to certain questions, and no way to get them. For example, will the restoration be at the expense of other Everglades projects, or in addition, Lehtinen asks?

Governor Crist has publicly said he has confidence the water district operated within he law. Representatives for the South Florida Water Management District have not commented. Lehtinen, who filed a lawsuit in the 80s aimed at stopping environmental damage in the Everglades, also represents the Miccosukee tribe in similar litigation, and, while something of an environmental showboater, makes a valid point.

In 2007, US Sugar, mired in the economy and struggling with duty-free sugar imports, floated a proposal to turn 7,000 acres of sugar fields into a sand and limestone mine. The proposal was quickly shot down by environmentalists. Then the company started vesting its pension plan in company stock (a plan known as an ESOP).  This spring, US Sugar suspended its dividend. Formerly traded on the Pink Sheets, the company is as good as dead. Many employees who bought into the ESOP are being retired on a stock value much lower than would be arrived at if the land sale were factored in, and have filed a lawsuit, charging that the land sale is, in fact, a move by company insiders to achieve their golden parachutes without divvying up the proceeds with former and current employees.  

Company chicanery aside, a new question looms: will US Sugar land actually go into the Everglades reserve, or be transferred to the Fanjul family, which owns Florida Crystals and 35,000 acres of land between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades?

The Fanjuls are not environmentalists; they stand with the workers and propose an "inland intermodal center", a place to hold containers while waiting to be shipped by the area's seaports. The state, investigating the feasibility, says the proposal could add 32,000 jobs by 2015. Thomas Van Lent of the Everglades Foundation says that only 130,000 acres are needed to complete the restoration plan. In effect, the Fanjuls, descendents of Cuban sugar moguls, would give up their 35,000 acres in exchange for 57,000 acres, making their total holding in the Everglades 212,000 acres.

This is not just a win-win, but a win-win-win, and all the winners are allied with the Republicans and the Bush administration. Who is likely to lose? The environment, when the cost of the land purchase depletes funding for other Everglades projects. The workers, who lose no matter which party is in power. Lastly, the integrity of a nation, which has a superb opportunity to mend some broken environmental fences but will likely end up selling some or all of the remaining land to mega-developers once the current housing-related financial crisis is over. Oh, and don't forget the endangered Florida panther, or the peaceful manatee, or all the species of birds and sea turtles, who really have no place else to go.

Further Reading:

• Sugar - Sick or Sweet?