Big Sugar’s latest legal maneuvers threaten to derail years of progress on Florida’s most critical Everglades restoration project.
On Wednesday, oral arguments were heard in Big Sugar’s ongoing lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Reservoir. This hearing, which took place in Atlanta at the U.S. Court of Appeals, marked the latest development in a case that could significantly impact the future of Everglades restoration and Florida’s clean water initiatives. Unlike the Tyson vs. Jake Paul “fight,” there’s ACTUALLY a lot on the line here, so read through for a breakdown of what happened, what’s at stake, and where the case goes from here.
Background: What’s at Stake?
The EAA Reservoir is a cornerstone Everglades restoration project under construction, designed to store and clean water before sending it south to the Everglades, rehydrating wetlands, and reducing damaging discharges to coastal estuaries. It’s the single most important Everglades restoration project on the books—but Big Sugar is suing over it.
In their lawsuit, which dates back to 2021, Big Sugar claims the project violates the “Savings Clause” in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, which was written to ensure that implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) wouldn’t eliminate existing legal water supplies without providing comparable replacements.
Big Sugar’s argument? They believe the EAA Reservoir should compensate them for water allocation changes made in 2008 to improve public safety under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS08). But here’s the catch: those changes had nothing to do with the EAA Reservoir or the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Despite losing this argument already in district court, Big Sugar appealed the decision, bringing the case to the appellate level and Wednesday’s oral hearing.
If Big Sugar succeeds, the EAA Reservoir could be repurposed to serve private Industrial Sugar interests as a water supply tank, funded by taxpayers, rather than fulfilling its intended mission of Everglades restoration. This would undermine nearly a decade of hard work, millions of taxpayer dollars, and public engagement.
Big Sugar’s Smoke and Mirrors: Misleading the Public
In the weeks leading up to the hearing, Big Sugar ramped up its messaging through their normal proxy network, claiming the lawsuit was about protecting municipal water supplies like those of West Palm Beach. But this argument is not only misleading, it’s irrelevant.
Although West Palm Beach’s primary water permit is for surface water sourced from Clear Lake and Lake Mangonia (both fed by Grassy Waters Preserve and Lake Okeechobee), the city also has the option to source from well fields east of Grassy Waters Preserve under certain circumstances authorized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), such as drought or water contamination.
Additionally, and more critically, the city has a second, newly authorized permit from SFWMD to tap into the Floridan Aquifer, although they have not yet constructed the infrastructure necessary to do so. The point is, the EAA Reservoir is not a real threat to West Palm Beach’s water supply.
Meanwhile, millions of South Floridians depend on the Biscayne Aquifer, which is replenished by water flowing through the Everglades. Disrupting the progress to improve this natural flow risks the long-term health of the aquifer and the communities it serves.
Big Sugar’s narrative around municipal water supply is nothing more than a smokescreen to mask its true agenda: protecting its private water interests.
What’s wrong with Big Sugar’s Arguments
The hearing in Atlanta shed more light on why Big Sugar’s claims lack merit. Here are three major takeaways from the proceedings:
- Water Belongs to the People, Not Private Interests
Big Sugar’s central argument hinges on the flawed assumption that they own the water flowing through the Everglades Agricultural Area, and that the government is without the authority to reduce those flows under essentially any circumstances. Multiple times during the hearing, they referenced “our water” and how “we’re getting robbed of our water.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. In Florida, water is held in trust for the public and managed for the greater good. The EAA Reservoir was designed to address environmental restoration and public benefit, not to prioritize private interests over the health of Florida’s ecosystems and communities. - The Challenge Is Over a Decade Too Late
Big Sugar’s grievances trace back to 2008 when the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule (LORS08) was updated to address public safety concerns. Any issues with these changes should have been raised at that time, not years later when the EAA Reservoir was introduced. By failing to act in 2008, the sugar industry missed its opportunity to challenge the Lake Okeechobee operation changes made, and trying to get around that missed deadline by creating a strained interpretation of the Savings Clause misrepresents its intent and scope. - The EAA Reservoir Enhances, Not Reduces, Water Supply
The notion that the EAA Reservoir violates the Savings Clause is fundamentally flawed. The reservoir increases available water storage, with one-third of its capacity already allocated to water supply interests, including Big Sugar. Claiming that a project designed to improve water management and supply somehow harms their access ignores the clear benefits it provides and undermines the reservoir’s primary purpose: restoring the Everglades and reducing harmful discharges to coastal estuaries.
Next Steps for the Case
While the judges appeared engaged and asked insightful questions during the hearing, a final decision could take months. And, unfortunately, at this point in the legal process, there’s nothing that can be done to influence the outcome—it’s a waiting game from here.
In the meantime, it’s critical to continue raising awareness of the lawsuit’s stakes. If Big Sugar prevails, the EAA Reservoir could lose its ability to send much-needed clean water south to the Everglades and reduce damaging coastal discharges, undermining years of restoration efforts and millions of taxpayer dollars.
Focused on continuing progress
We’re committed to defending the EAA Reservoir and the greater fight for clean water. This case is a critical juncture for Florida’s water future, and the outcome will have lasting implications for the environment, public health, and local economies.
Big Sugar’s lawsuit is a self-serving attempt to derail one of the most vital Everglades restoration projects. The EAA Reservoir was designed to benefit the public, not private industries, and turning it into a water supply tank for Big Sugar would undermine its primary mission. As we await the court’s decision, the message is clear: Florida’s water belongs to all of us, and protecting it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
Big Sugar’s latest legal maneuvers threaten to derail years of progress on Florida’s most critical Everglades restoration project.
On Wednesday, oral arguments were heard in Big Sugar’s ongoing lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Reservoir. This hearing, which took place in Atlanta at the U.S. Court of Appeals, marked the latest development in a case that could significantly impact the future of Everglades restoration and Florida’s clean water initiatives. Unlike the Tyson vs. Jake Paul “fight,” there’s ACTUALLY a lot on the line here, so read through for a breakdown of what happened, what’s at stake, and where the case goes from here.
Background: What’s at Stake?
The EAA Reservoir is a cornerstone Everglades restoration project under construction, designed to store and clean water before sending it south to the Everglades, rehydrating wetlands, and reducing damaging discharges to coastal estuaries. It’s the single most important Everglades restoration project on the books—but Big Sugar is suing over it.
In their lawsuit, which dates back to 2021, Big Sugar claims the project violates the “Savings Clause” in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, which was written to ensure that implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) wouldn’t eliminate existing legal water supplies without providing comparable replacements.
Big Sugar’s argument? They believe the EAA Reservoir should compensate them for water allocation changes made in 2008 to improve public safety under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS08). But here’s the catch: those changes had nothing to do with the EAA Reservoir or the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Despite losing this argument already in district court, Big Sugar appealed the decision, bringing the case to the appellate level and Wednesday’s oral hearing.
If Big Sugar succeeds, the EAA Reservoir could be repurposed to serve private Industrial Sugar interests as a water supply tank, funded by taxpayers, rather than fulfilling its intended mission of Everglades restoration. This would undermine nearly a decade of hard work, millions of taxpayer dollars, and public engagement.
Big Sugar’s Smoke and Mirrors: Misleading the Public
In the weeks leading up to the hearing, Big Sugar ramped up its messaging through their normal proxy network, claiming the lawsuit was about protecting municipal water supplies like those of West Palm Beach. But this argument is not only misleading, it’s irrelevant.
Although West Palm Beach’s primary water permit is for surface water sourced from Clear Lake and Lake Mangonia (both fed by Grassy Waters Preserve and Lake Okeechobee), the city also has the option to source from well fields east of Grassy Waters Preserve under certain circumstances authorized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), such as drought or water contamination.
Additionally, and more critically, the city has a second, newly authorized permit from SFWMD to tap into the Floridan Aquifer, although they have not yet constructed the infrastructure necessary to do so. The point is, the EAA Reservoir is not a real threat to West Palm Beach’s water supply.
Meanwhile, millions of South Floridians depend on the Biscayne Aquifer, which is replenished by water flowing through the Everglades. Disrupting the progress to improve this natural flow risks the long-term health of the aquifer and the communities it serves.
Big Sugar’s narrative around municipal water supply is nothing more than a smokescreen to mask its true agenda: protecting its private water interests.
What’s wrong with Big Sugar’s Arguments
The hearing in Atlanta shed more light on why Big Sugar’s claims lack merit. Here are three major takeaways from the proceedings:
- Water Belongs to the People, Not Private Interests
Big Sugar’s central argument hinges on the flawed assumption that they own the water flowing through the Everglades Agricultural Area, and that the government is without the authority to reduce those flows under essentially any circumstances. Multiple times during the hearing, they referenced “our water” and how “we’re getting robbed of our water.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. In Florida, water is held in trust for the public and managed for the greater good. The EAA Reservoir was designed to address environmental restoration and public benefit, not to prioritize private interests over the health of Florida’s ecosystems and communities. - The Challenge Is Over a Decade Too Late
Big Sugar’s grievances trace back to 2008 when the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule (LORS08) was updated to address public safety concerns. Any issues with these changes should have been raised at that time, not years later when the EAA Reservoir was introduced. By failing to act in 2008, the sugar industry missed its opportunity to challenge the Lake Okeechobee operation changes made, and trying to get around that missed deadline by creating a strained interpretation of the Savings Clause misrepresents its intent and scope. - The EAA Reservoir Enhances, Not Reduces, Water Supply
The notion that the EAA Reservoir violates the Savings Clause is fundamentally flawed. The reservoir increases available water storage, with one-third of its capacity already allocated to water supply interests, including Big Sugar. Claiming that a project designed to improve water management and supply somehow harms their access ignores the clear benefits it provides and undermines the reservoir’s primary purpose: restoring the Everglades and reducing harmful discharges to coastal estuaries.
Next Steps for the Case
While the judges appeared engaged and asked insightful questions during the hearing, a final decision could take months. And, unfortunately, at this point in the legal process, there’s nothing that can be done to influence the outcome—it’s a waiting game from here.
In the meantime, it’s critical to continue raising awareness of the lawsuit’s stakes. If Big Sugar prevails, the EAA Reservoir could lose its ability to send much-needed clean water south to the Everglades and reduce damaging coastal discharges, undermining years of restoration efforts and millions of taxpayer dollars.
Focused on continuing progress
We’re committed to defending the EAA Reservoir and the greater fight for clean water. This case is a critical juncture for Florida’s water future, and the outcome will have lasting implications for the environment, public health, and local economies.
Big Sugar’s lawsuit is a self-serving attempt to derail one of the most vital Everglades restoration projects. The EAA Reservoir was designed to benefit the public, not private industries, and turning it into a water supply tank for Big Sugar would undermine its primary mission. As we await the court’s decision, the message is clear: Florida’s water belongs to all of us, and protecting it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.