So what can be done?

What can be done and why hasn't it been done?

        This is a complex issue, made more so persons with power saying all the right things (at least some of the time) and doing f**k all that really matters most of the time.

        The key issue here is that the 50,000 acres of sugar production in the lands dried out by the Hoover Dike have blossomed more than tenfold  into over half a million acres of sugar production. Almost 40% of that land is in sugar production controlled by the Fanjul family, Cuban immigrants turned sugar barons. The Fanjuls in sugar production alone represent the third largest corporation in Florida. Patriarch Alfonso, "Alfy" has been in the US since leaving Cuba as a result of the 1959 communist revolution, yet is not a US citizen, retaining permanent resident status and Spanish citizenship. The issue with the Fanjuls is like a hydra, multi-headed, most of them ugly.

        The Fanjul brothers were parodied in Carl Hiaasen's 1993 novel/movie  Strip Tease, which features a pair of Cuban brothers who own a large sugar conglomerate, that receives enormous profits from the exploitation of immigrant labor and the subsidies regularly voted to them by the United States Congress. This would have been humorous, being Hiaasen, but it is also sobering, because Hiaasen cut very close to the bone.

        The brothers also were a focus in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent (2006), which showcases the corrupt use of cane workers and especially "imported" labor. The U.S. Dept. of Labor's "List of Goods Produced by Child or Forced Labor" report lists sugarcane from the Dominican Republic as having child and forced labor. This is a small source of raw sugar that is imported from 40 different companies to be refined then sold by Domino Foods (Fanjul owned /controlled), a marketing cooperative that among its products sells the Florida Crystals brand (also Fanjul).

        The 2007 film, The Sugar Babies, is a documentary on the lives of Haitians and their children working in the Dominican Republic sugar cane fields and the Central La Romana factory run by the Fanjuls. and makes it clear that the Fanjuls exploit  weak and under class children outside the US.

        But why should we care? Because the Fanjul family as well as all other sugar growers receive free money from the government in the form of artificially high  price levels maintained to keep domestic sugar competitive.  

        The federal government  enforces a system of tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, limiting the supply of cheaper sugar that can be imported from abroad. This results in wide spreads between global and domestic sugar prices. It causes American consumers to pay more for sugar that a free market price would dictate. Even though Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush have all objected to continued sugar freebies, (Bush vetoed and was overridden) Congressmen of both parties,  greased by campaign contributions (more later) have steadfastly given big sugar (no one is bigger than the Fanjuls) a "sweet " deal. Continued domestic sugar  price supports and punitive tariffs on countries which , on one hand, we want to be our friends, but on the other we exploit, agriculturally are Congress' present to Sugar.  

        Without sugar price supports, the  savings would have positive consequences for America’s growth. A recent  Iowa State University study concludes that if the sugar program were abolished, U.S. sugar prices would fall by roughly a third, saving consumers $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion. The study also found that employment in industries that depend on sugar as an input, such as confectioners, would add 17,000 to 20,000 new jobs in the absence of the sugar program. Already, confectioners are moving production abroad to take advantage of lower foreign sugar prices. Eliminating the sugar program could reverse this trend.

       Surprisingly, repealing the sugar program would increase employment in the sugar industry itself. In absence of federal meddling, American sugar refineries would be able to use cheap sugar from abroad rather than expensive, protected domestic sugar for their operations. The Iowa State University study estimates that domestic sugar refineries would expand output by 24 percent in the absence of the sugar program.

        I will discuss a bit later why Sugar supports continue.

        The other more enduring and perhaps even irremediable aspect of this folly is that as long as it exists, there is  no incentive to limit or curtail or modify  land usage south of  Okeechobee for sugar production. The fertilizer and nutrient load in the lake comes from the Kissimmee system influx in part, but what is also  damaging is the chemical cocktail  back- pumped from the land back in to the lake and by extension into the St. Lucie Canal and the entire Southern Indian River Lagoon, which extends South as far as Stuart, where the Okeechobee  drawdown is currently spurring the toxic algae bloom.

         Chemicals from fertilizers used in sugarcane production in Florida are seeping into the Everglades, causing contamination of groundwater and habitat loss for native wildlife. For decades, South Florida sugar and vegetable growers have used the public’s waters, pumped out of giant Lake Okeechobee, to irrigate their fields. They wash the water over their industrial-sized crops, where it is contaminated with fertilizers and other pollutants. Then, they get taxpayers in the South Florida Water Management District to pay to pump the contaminated water back into Lake Okeechobee, where it pollutes public drinking water supplies. Lake Okeechobee provides drinking water for West Palm Beach, Fort Myers, and the entire Lower East Coast metropolitan area.

        Chemicals from fertilizers used in sugarcane production in Florida are seeping into the Everglades, causing contamination of groundwater and habitat loss for native wildlife. What percolates goes south into the Northern Everglades, having the same effect, lessened by the fact that, unlike Okeechobee, the 'Glades can still (for now) filter  nutrients.  

       So, we know who (Big Sugar, the Fanjuls, The Corps,other agricultural interests, et al), we know what (chemical runoffs pumped back into the lake and percolating into the 'Glades) and we know why (sugar subsidies keeping US Sugar profitable , and US consumers paying for it). How come we don't fix it?

        Let's talk subsidies again briefly: Why do federal sugar programs still exist? They cost consumers and producers money, decrease employment and economic growth, harm the environment, and only benefit a few farmers.    The total savings from eliminating sugar subsidies would only be around $10 per American consumer. On the other hand, 20,000 sugar farmers gained $1.7 billion in transfers last year. That means each sugar farmer effectively received $85,000 in other taxpayers’ money.

       It would be economically irrational for everyday Americans to even spend enough time worrying about sugar subsidies to read a few articles on the topic, and by and large we don't, remaining blissfully unaware.  In diametric opposition, it makes a lot of sense for sugar farmers to spend most of their time and energy fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their preferred treatment, as their livelihoods depend on this, and they do; believe me, they do, small producers benefitting from lobbying efforts of the big producers (those Fanjuls again!)

        When the political process becomes  beholden to special interests, the consumer costs of preferred treatment slowly start to increase. Everything from biofuel mandates ( a guaranteed market for unsold US sugar!), to dairy subsidies, to wind and solar power tax breaks have strong, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs—adding up to thousands of dollars in extra, government-imposed costs for American consumers. Congress should abolish the sugar program(s)  once and for all. An economy where the politically-connected are able to exert undue influence over government is unfair and harms economic growth. What America produces and the pricing of such output ought to be determined by what makes sense for consumers and the economy, not by arbitrary and distortionary government intervention.

        Now a closer look at the mechanisms in play:  Recent phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee have been in the 500-ton range, more than three times the goal of 140 tons. Today, estimates are that so much phosphorus has already been spread in the watershed to keep these heavy loads coming for decades. Today, nutrients from the EAA (the Everglades Agricultural Area - dried by the loss of Okeechobee water flowing through it, prime sugar land) ) are today less than 5 percent of the total into Lake Okeechobee. More than 90 percent is from the northern Lake Okeechobee watersheds. The failure to control phosphorus runoff is shared by the Florida Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environmental Regulation. 

        OK, so if Big Sugar is only 5% of the chemical problem, why blame them? The answer requires a bit of "if - then" logic, so follow along. Okeechobee ("the Lake") has been "bottled up, especially the southern part, to protect booming agricultural, mostly sugar, towns, like Pahokee,  Belle Glade, and Clewsiton  ( "America's  Sweetest Town" according to its Chamber of Commerce) from flooding at high lake water levels should the Hoover Dike breach.  This means no water from the Lake is being released through this land other than controlled irrigation water. No water heading south means more water retained in The Lake. higher levels with the Kissimmee influx of nitrogen and phosphorus laden waters means  more polluted releases like the  current St. Lucie Canal fiasco.

What can we do?  

        The gross pollution of Lake Okeechobee must become a state priority. Agricultural and water utility interests must accept the fact that Lake Okeechobee's level must be held below 16 feet and that 'back pumping' polluted water from the EAA even in times of drought must not be permitted. Lake Okeechobee cannot continue to be considered a sewer. To accomplish this, significant quantities of land, much of it in sugar production currently, within the vast EAA must be acquired by the state and the South Florida Water Management District to construct major additional storage capacity and pollution control marshes that will dramatically reduce the nutrients flowing off the sugar cane plantations into the Everglades system. Unless excessive Lake Okeechobee water is cleansed through this vast series of pollution-control artificial marsh systems built principally by the taxpayers of the 16 counties of South Florida for the sugar cane and winter crop growers, drainage cannot be allowed to flow into the Everglades, as it will change the botanical makeup of the "River of Grass"  within months.

        This has already been done in 1950s muck farm polluted Lake Apopka with better results than expected as muck farms have been replaced with marshes which filter water pumped from the lake as it drains through them.   

       Additionally,  sugar cane plantations if allowed to continue must be forced to control and treat the thousands of gallons of polluted water on their land before they discharge it into the waters of the state. They should pay a far greater share for cleaning up their wastes for the needed additional pollution control marshes. Before the flow way and the pollution control marshes are built and are operational, additional storage -- both upstream in the lake's headwaters ("unstraighten" the Kissimmee River?) and within the Everglades Agricultural Area -- must be acquired, and a number of other priorities must be addressed.

        First, Tamiami Trail must be modified to allow massive amounts of water to flow southward from the Northern 'Glades into the Southern portion of the park.  A one-mile bridge and limited road raising are currently under construction. While this is a very positive first step, more needs to done. The trail needs more bridges and road raising (up to another 2 feet) so that it is protected when the Everglades and the lake are once again connected.  If it were being built today, viaducts of elevated road would eliminate the issue altogether, but...! This problem must be solved before excess water can be released into Everglades National Park, relieving the entire system of too much water which forces the discharges of billions of gallons of water down the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers.

Everything on the list represents one week of the Afghanistan War expenses. Everything on the list is obtainable.

So why haven't we done it?

        The public and a veritable  army of environmental advocates has been arguing for many, many years that the only solution to the Lake Okeechobee crisis is to buy a great deal of the land south of the Lake. Create surface water storage, a rigorous water quality regime and conveyance adequate to deal with, or more desirably and as feasible, avoid the toxic mess.

          During his tenure, more than 30 years ago, Gov. Bob Graham announced in the early 1980s a major effort to restore the Everglades system. Governor  Lawton Chiles in 1998 vetoed two bills which would have  absolved the federal Government of any fiscal responsibility in 'Glades restoration, even though sugar price supports are a large portion of the problem.  

        In 2000, Jeb Bush signed (with great fanfare) the Everglades Restoration Act.  Companies such as U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun had also been major contributors to both Bush's Foundation for Florida's Future and to the Republican Party of Florida, which bankrolled Bush's successful 1998 campaign. The Everglades restoration program focused on water quantity. The sugar industry was more concerned about water quality. 

       The 'Glades cannot tolerate more than a microscopic amount of phosphorous flowing through its saw grass. Runoff from sugar farms has long contained too much phosphorous, wiping out the saw grass and spreading cattails, which are all wrong for the wildlife found in the Everglades. A 1994 law called the Everglades Forever Act set a deadline of 2006 for eliminating that pollution. But as the deadline crept closer, sugar executives decided they needed more time. Sooooo, In 2003, the industry deployed more than 40 lobbyists in Tallahassee to push a bill to the Governor (Jeb) that said the water didn't need to be clean by then.  Instead, it said, all that had to be done by then was to adopt a plan to stop the pollution. It also used language such as "to the maximum extent practicable" and "earliest practicable date." The industry's goal: push the cleanup deadline back to 2026. However, it still hasn't hit that purity level.  Once Bush allowed the deadline to be pushed back, till now there has been a deterioration of the general health of the Everglades.

        It took Rick Scott to "resolve" the problem. In 2012 he cut a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency to spend $880 million on filter marshes and other structures to clean up the phosphorus. Because of the construction schedule on those structures, a state house source said, "We're today looking at 2025 as the date for compliance." That's just a year short of what the sugar industry wanted. (and 19 longer than Bush's intent before he caved to the Big Sugar interests!)

          It is a source of fascination that several  nominally conservative Florida Governors (and other state level legislators too numerous to mention, rail against the EPA and Climate Change warnings but have gotten all "misty eyed (publically)" when the 'Glades are mentioned. One suspects they see it as a "legacy."  Before he was governor, Rick Scott attacked another Florida politician, and fellow Republican for accepting campaign funds from U.S. Sugar (those pesky Fanjuls again!) He  said Bill McCollum, his opponent in the 2010 Republican primary, had been “bought and paid for.’’ With that election in the mists of time,  Scott later accepted at least $534,000 for his reelection campaign from the selfsame corporate giant.

        Months after a Scott "freebie" hunting trip to the King ranch, (surprise, owned by US Sugar!), the Legislature passed and Scott signed a bill that lets sugar growers pay less than their fair share for repairing damage they did to the Everglades, sticking taxpayers with the bill for the rest. Although Scott’s campaign staff calls his 2013 hunting trip a fundraiser, campaign records show not one single donation made by anyone to Scott or his campaign committee during that Valentine’s Day weekend.  Of more than half a million dollars  U.S. Sugar then donated to the Scott reelection campaign, essentially all was cash.  On the same day, Scott’s campaign accepted $25,000 from King Ranch,  a major player in the Florida sugar and citrus industries.

        Back in 2010, Scott had reason to oppose U.S. Sugar, which was steering more than $680,000 to television ads helping McCollum’s campaign.  More correctly it was a reason for Scott to smear fellow  GOPer Bill McCollum. During a 2010 tea party rally in West Palm Beach, Scott accused McCollum of being a puppet of U.S. Sugar. Scott opposed a big land deal between Florida and U.S. Sugar that had been pushed by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, who had also received big U.S. Sugar support as a candidate. Although Crist did get US Sugar support (he was a Florida politician and that's what they do!) the deal would have taken a almost all  of EAA land out of sugar production! McCollum supported the Crist proposal. Go figure! Scott called U.S. Sugar’s financial support of McCollum’s 2010 campaign “disgusting.” He later said that the Clewiston company “owned” McCollum. The charges grew out of what was actually at first  as a major move to save the Everglades.

        In 2008, a judge ruled that the sugar industry’s long-standing (and continuing) practice of dumping polluted water into Lake Okeechobee was illegal and a state agency voted to forbid the practice. U.S. Sugar lobbyists went to seek Charlie Crist’s help with the state agency. Instead of intervention, Crist proposed the state buy all the company’s 187,000 acres and various assets and use it for Everglades restoration projects. McCollum supported the move, which led to Scott’s blasting him for being a puppet of sugar interests. Apparently US Sugar support is disgusting unless it's you they're supporting.

        Unfortunately, 2008 and the housing bubble collapse arrived simultaneously, and the big U.S. Sugar deal dwindled into something significantly less than planned. In 2010, amid the state's economic meltdown, the South Florida Water Management District, was only able to buy  26,800 acres from U.S. Sugar for $197 million, with an option to buy the rest later.  

And on the national stage:

The rap against former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the 2016  GOP presidential primaries was that he’s part of a political dynasty that epitomizes business-as-usual in Washington. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, has desperately tried positioned himself as a young, fresh-faced champion of limited-government conservatism. But those stereotypes would have  shattered  like glass if a shrewd debate moderator had asked the two Floridians about the  U.S. sugar program! Mr. Bush’s campaign has said he favors phasing it out, as did his short bus brother. But Mr. Rubio argued as recently as August that it ought to be terminated only when other countries like Brazil “get rid of theirs,” which is to say, never.

          There just isn't and cannot be an economically valid defense of the sugar program, which every year provides sweetheart deal loans  to sugar processors at a guaranteed price-per-pound. If the market price is below the guarantee when they want to sell, the processors simply dump the crop on the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the loan repayment. To avoid that outcome, the USDA holds sugar prices artificially high by imposing tariffs on imports above an annual quota. As a result, as previously discussed, we Americans pay about twice what the rest of the world pays for sugar.

        The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which includes businesses that use sugar, says and I pointed out earlier in this piece,  that for every U.S. sugar-growing job saved from high U.S. sugar prices, about three American manufacturing jobs are lost! You might want to  read that again.  The U.S. candy industry has been hollowed out as companies have fled to places like Guatemala and Thailand where they can remain competitive by buying sugar at world-market prices.

Mr. Rubio explains his support with the last  bankrupt refuge of protectionist scoundrels—"national security." Yep, we might have a "sugar gap"  and then God only know what those sugar countries might do!  If the U.S. opens the market for sugar, according to Rubio, “other countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate,” and “then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”

        Really, Senator?  And this man has a college degree? So, let's see;  taking this to its logical conclusion....... If Americans don’t pay double the world price for sugar, Alfy and Pepe Fanjul will sell their sugar acreage to home builders, who will pave over Florida and put us at risk of extortion from . . . Brazil? This national security line doesn’t even hold up for rare-earth minerals from China used for national defense, much less a basic farm commodity. This, of course, also fails as a reason, since Florida will own the land and the Fanjuls can go back to Cuba and be the Cuban sugar kings again.

       Since 2010, as before, we sit watching helplessly as the crud continues puking its way into the St Lucie Canal, the Kissimmee watershed remains a narrow, straight channel, and the River of Grass continues thirsty and under watered with clean water. Lake pollution continues threatening the South Florida water supply and who cares?  Florida voters went to the polls in the 1990’s and agreed that Big Sugar must be primarily responsible to clean up its pollution. It just hasn’t happened. Voters went to the polls in 2014 to pass a constitutional amendment — approved by more than 75 percent of Floridians — to buy environmentally important lands like those owned by US Sugar and the Fanjuls. it likewise, hasn’t happened.

        How odd would it be if finally the bitching of rich folks about the thick, green pus in the canal where their 60 footer is moored causes someone to do something re: big sugar  other than put a hand out, drop trou and sat "Thank you sir, may I have another?"