U.S. Sugar preparing to sell Everglades land
In a surprise move environmentalists call "breathtaking," U.S. Sugar Corp. plans to announce today a deal to sell the state 187,000 acres in the Everglades for $1.75-billion.
If approved, it would be the largest conservation purchase the state has ever made, helping restore the ecosystem's natural flow and providing a quantum leap to the effort to clean up the Everglades.
"It's like the Louisiana Purchase for the Everglades," said John Marshall of the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation, an advocacy group.
The effect on U.S. Sugar is also profound. A force in Florida's economy and politics for decades, the Clewiston company could cease to exist in about five years. (story here)

There have been so many requirements placed on Big Sugar that the water coming out of their operation is cleaner than the water going in...
So while this seems like a great deal - I think it is - what will the cost of restoring the swamp land back to an actual swamp be? Who will be responsible?
Additionally, with tomatoes killing people, no more sugar, we should be rid of illegals really quick.
Posted by: | June 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM
10,000 an acre is simply absurd for raw sugar cane land that has NO development value, and little ability to grow other crops because of farming regulations north of the Everglades.
So this is just presented to the public without an independent evaluation? Any time the state buys land in the Preservation 2000 program, it goes through an evaluation and appraisal process, then to the Cabinet for final approval, and Legislture to approve funding.
I cant believe this company - which is nearly bankrupt with lawsuits - can demand $10,000 an acre and get it from the goverment when everything else is being cut to the bone.
Posted by: Cfish | June 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM
1.7 billion? Jesus H Christ!!!
Posted by: | June 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM
CHill Cfish, it will go through the same process as any other purchase. It has to. And it is funny to see half the people griping about the land being worthless, and the other half griping about how much money Big Sugar makes - which is it? (in other words, if they make so much money growing cane, then the land must be valuable)
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 06:18 AM
I see that environmentalists negotiated this price, and not business people or taxpayers. Obviously someone with no experience with land valuation put a price tag on this.
10,000 an acre for farmland in the middle of the state? Whats underneath the dirt, gold bullion?
Posted by: Evan | June 24, 2008 at 07:23 AM
I guess liberals don't mind sweetheart business deals if they're environmentally friendly.
I think we've just discovered a most unholy union.
Posted by: Omega83 | June 24, 2008 at 07:25 AM
Amen Omega. Let environmentalists raise the money themselves and buy out this land and stop using MY TAX DOLLARS.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 07:37 AM
You'll see these companies take their $1.7 Billion, move to a foreign country, set up shop there and import it back to us. Nothing like paving the road for an industry to thrive. Iowa farmers already do this in Brazil while we pay them subsidies. Nice policy!
Posted by: Donald Lance | June 24, 2008 at 07:38 AM
If the land is going to be farmed, then let go in a few years, you guys do realize the land will be turned from "income producing" to "income depleting". Its going to cost a bloody fortune every year for the state to manage this land and keep out invasive species, keep the water flow clean, etc etc...
I just aint seeing the wisdom here that a couple of you see.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 08:26 AM
When Republicans make a deal with Big Business, investigation is called for. If this land is so important to the Everglades restoration, tell me, is buying it part of the official restoration plan? If so, then why isn't the Fed giving us some matching funds? After all, 1.75B is only a day and a half in Iraq.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 08:34 AM
Under 10 grand an acre for good farmland in Florida seems very reasonable. They could have really put the screws on. I'm puzzled. I'm also curious about the effect on any future debates about ethanol production.
Posted by: Buzzard | June 24, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Alex Leary, I find the comment at June 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM to be offensive and childish. Doesn't have any place in a quality newspaper like the Times.
Posted by: That's the way I see it. | June 24, 2008 at 08:40 AM
How does Paula Dockery feel about giving billions in taxpayer dollars to a private company?
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 08:46 AM
8:26 - amen!
Like I said earlier - there were requirements on the quality of water that was coming out of the farmland and the result was cleaner water coming out than what was going in... those requirements for a private business to pay for will not be there anymore and will become the state's responsibility...
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Glad we've got nearly 2 bil to spare. Guess the teachers have gotten their raise, class sizes have been lowered and and the needed cops have been put on the streets.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 09:36 AM
I've lived my entire life along with my family and friends in Clewiston, so forgive me if I'm not in love with the idea as much as everyone else seems to be. Almost everybody I know in my town either works for US Sugar or works for a company that does business with them. So people who've lived and worked their entire lives here will have to find a new place to live in a few years once everything is phased out, but that's okay, since the precious Everglades Snail Kite will have a chance to thrive once more, right? I'm not a big fan of USSC in particular, but for better or for worse, my entire town and surrounding communities rely on them and they've done more to put food on my table than any animal in the Glades ever has (although I'll be eating plenty of gator-tail if things start to get tight around here). So while everybody's singing praises of victory over evil Big Sugar, thousands of people, including my friends, family, and myself have no idea where we will be living in a few years. It gives me no comfort to know that in 10-15 years the Everglades will still be in trouble and environmentalists won't have the evil farmers to blame (though I'm sure they still will). They'll probably decide that there's no way to salvage it and they'll start building $700,000 homes on the former sugar-cane land so rich snowbirds can have somewhere to vacation (after all, the east coast can only hold so many). But it's ok, because the people who've lived here by the sweat of their brow for over fifty years won't be around to put up much of a fuss. After all, who wants to drive by an ugly old farm on their way to the golf course?
Posted by: Jesse in Clewiston | June 24, 2008 at 09:44 AM
So we give them billions when they never did the cleanup they were supposed to. Then we let them farm it and pollute it for another 5 years, at least? Why? So they can pollute it more and we the taxpayers are stuck with the responsibility and the bill?
$10,000 per acre is totally ridiculous. Times -- go back and check all the deals made by this greedy rapacious polluting politician buying corporate crony -- over the decades. Then tell me why we don't just TAKE IT for what these crooks already OWE Florida.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 09:49 AM
Buzzard, that is sheer comedy. Go anywhere in the state and you will find that farmland is being sold for well under 3,000 an acre, if it has limited or no development value. This land has NO development value. The rights to develop were stripped decades ago by the government. The only farmland that exceeds this price per acre would be land with significant 20-30 year timber growth.
I agree with the above. This price is through the roof. I also agree that the state - which does an atrocious job at managing lands after it buys them - is purchasing a massive recurring cost.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Any realtors out there reading this? I'm in the market for some of that under-$3000 per acre farm land.
Posted by: Buzzard | June 24, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I digress...."WELL under $3000"
Posted by: Buzzard | June 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Buzzard, I think his point is the value in Florida is derived from development rights and if you have none, raw land isnt worth $10,000 an acre if it sits in an area that has limited use even for farming. I totally agree. I dont know if the magic number is $3,000, but I doubt its much more.
This isnt a horse farm in Marion county, or citrus groves in Indian River that can be converted to single family housing units. This is sugar land that can only farm limited crops due to environmental regs and cannot be developed.
Posted by: TM | June 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Well, we could have all guessed the loonies crying about education funding would be on here spewing their nonsense. They are not smart enough to even comprehend what the article said. The funding is coming from South Florida Water Management. Not the
State budget. They are their own taxing authority, just like a city or county. If you don't like how they spend the money THEY collect from taxes, vote the board members out. To say shame on the State for spending money that should go to education is either ignorant or dishonest. How it will be paid for is bonds will be sold putting up SFWM tax doles up for collateral. The SFWM will pay back the bonds over 5 years from the taxes they collect. The money that will pay for this land could NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE USED FOR EDUCATION. Therefore your pitiful comments are just that, pitiful. Here's an idea, how about EDUCATING yourself before you go on these rants.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
11:00, are you aware that the SFWMD has current everglades restoration projects backed up in the queue...BILLIONS worth that cannot get funding because they dont have the bonding capacity? They were at their bonding capacity this year until the Legislature gave them another billion in bonding authority to continue restoration projects.
They simply dont have this money you say they do.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Looking on the map, from what I can see this is not exactly prime real estate for development, or for restoration. It looks to me like a big chunk of that treeless muckland south of Okeechobee that is already hopelessly overrun by an invasive species called sugar cane. Does it actually butt up against Loxahatchee or the 'Glades? What good will it do for Everglades restoration to own this parcel?
I smell a FLGOP + Big Sugar SWAMP RAT.
Posted by: Realistic Environmentalist | June 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
looks like 11:00 needs an education
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I'm so glad that as a taxpayer I can support the multi-millionaires of U.S. Sugar by overpaying for this property!!! After all we are so flush after laying off parole officers, nursing home inspectors (abuse is up by the way), child abuse inspectors, foster care workers, prosecutors, and teachers!!!
Thank you Governor Crist! Thank you Pruitt, Rubio, Fasano, Atwater, Posey, Homan and all your fellow Repiglican sheep!!!!
By the way, these are the same guys who wanted to give $700 million (actually $1.5 Billion) to CSX!!!!
Remember in November!!!
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Actually, SFWM has a ton of money. Do you know that they have so much that they send.their very own private jet to pick up their board members to take them to their meetings. Sometimes it is only a 20 min flight. So 11:00 is exactly right.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM
11:11 (hey do have the money. Plus, the issue is, the money is NOT coming out of the state budget.Not to mention the fact that the State can give them as much bonding authority as the State wants.
11:12 you are an idiot
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM
once again big sugar makes its money from the government rather than its business
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 12:21 PM
11:46, you don't have the mental capacity to understand about the money not coming out of the State budget. So, no use trying to explain it to someone like you. You are probably a public school teacher, which is why I would never send my children to a public school.
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I wonder how Florida TaxWatch feels about this "drunken spending" of our tax dollars? Unless...isn't one of the Board members of Florida TaxWatch also a U.S. Sugar executive?
Problem Solved!
Posted by: | June 24, 2008 at 12:34 PM
It appears to me that the hucksters are tying up loose ends, getting all they can before the next ERECTION ! Next you'll have the OIL rigs off Florida shores. Looks like things are moving along with the (check this out) PLAN for the REWILDING Of America. The Midwest is now being reclaimed - thanks to HARRP/scalar energy --(check Sec of Defense Cohen's quote on weather modification) ---but let's not educate ourselves on the real destruction taking place in this nation ---already 50% of the land west of Denver is gov owned - then there's Ted Turner ( stand in for UN) who is the LARGEST landowner in the country - with hundreds of thousands of acres in the west. All of this land will be SHUT off to everyone ( forget this future BS) - with islands of controlled sustainable communities for those who manage to survive - the oil/ food/ jobless crisis. WAKE UP - this deal with thousands of acres in every state being set aside is well planned while we're worried about Obama's flag pin and McCain's stupid energy plan contest. See Global Landgrab - Judith Moriarty, to catch up on the real story. JM
Posted by: Judith Moriarty - NH | June 25, 2008 at 06:26 PM