Everglades reservoir: critics question timing, legality of agriculture lease

Some environmental watchdog groups and politicians are still fuming over a state water district's decision Thursday to extend a Florida Crystals lease on land designated for an Everglades restoration project. 

The South Florida Water Management District governing board approved an agriculture lease through 2027 for about 16,000 acres in the Everglades Agriculture Area, or EAA. 

While the old lease wasn't set to expire until March, district officials pushed the lease through in less than 24 hours. 

U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, R-Palm City, said earlier this week that both he and Florida Republican governor candidate Ron DeSantis wanted to be briefed on the lease before it was approved. 

More:Water managers to meet in Fort Myers Monday to talk recreation, but locals want to talk pollution

More:Critics say water quality problems could have been avoided

Instead, the district posted information about the lease Wednesday night and voted Thursday morning. 

The district could have waited until next year to make this decision, until a new administration takes office and the elections are settled, critics say. 

"People are just more suspicious, why," Sanibel Mayor Kevin Ruane said rhetorically. "Both (DeSantis) and Mast together made a joint statement asking to delay this decision, and there’s no reason to make a decision until March." 

Ruane and others say they're concerned the reservoir may be delayed by the new lease agreement. 

The timing and what seems like many to be an extension on the reservoir timeline has some in Southwest Florida concerned. 

"You really have to wonder about their timing," said Calusa Waterkeeper John Cassani. "They certainly were in negotiation with the lessee and didn’t give the public more than 12 hour notice, so you really have to wonder if that was a proper legal notice for that."

Celeste De Palma with Audubon Florida has similar concerns. 

"It’s really not the best way to conduct government business on behalf of the people of Florida," De Palma said. "It could have been handled much better. You have an administration in transition and whoever is the person that’s coming in will have to deal with the outcome of this new lease and getting the reservoir off the ground."

The water district board said it did not break state sunshine laws by inserting a lease agreement on land earmarked for the reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee into an agenda the night before approving it.

But the district may have violated another state law specifically requiring the district to publish three notices of "intention to lease" before the meeting Thursday. Asked about the requirement at Thursday's meeting, district General Counsel Brian Accardo said there was an exemption for 'mandated" lease agreements, and the lease approved by the board was mandated by the legislation authorizing the reservoir project.

The project is often referred to as the Everglades Agriculture Area, or EAA, reservoir and will be built on about 10,000 acres. Another 6,500 acres has been set aside for a filer marsh. 

More:Water advocates worried Caloosahatchee reservoir costs may be going up

More:Pair paddles through northern Everglades over nine days, 134 watery miles

It will be used in conjunction with other restoration projects to help water quality conditions in the historic Everglades, which stretches from just south of Orlando to the Florida Keys and includes Fort Myers and Naples. 

Water quality issues like red tide and blue-green algae have plagued the west and east coasts this year, impacting local fisheries and the tourism-based economies. 

The reservoir is expected to cost $1.8 billion, with the state and federal agencies splitting the costs evenly. It will store about 78 billion gallons a water, according to plans. 

Leasing lands until construction starts on a restoration project is not an unusual practice. 

It generates money for the restoration projects and keeps the land from becoming fallow. 

Former water district governing board member Mitch Hutchcraft said "I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary." 

"In general if you let a piece of land just sit there and aren’t actively using it, you wind up with exotics on it and it becomes a management issue and it’s far more costly to get it to a clean state, whereas if you have a lease owner there there are stringent requirements on what you can do and can’t do," he said. "From a taxpayers perspective, it’s a good thing."

But Cassani and others say they're still perplexed and concerned about why the state would push through an agriculture lease right after an election. 

They worry the state may not be serious about building the reservoir. 

"The duration of the lease seems excessive if the district is really genuine about using the land for the restoration project," Cassani said. "The other things that concerns me is those thousands of acres will need water and flood control and will still be generating lots of nutrient run-off so there are costs to the public with those activities."

Connect with this reporter: Chad Gillis on Twitter. USA TODAY Network reporter Tyler Treadway contributed to this report.