Sneaky Developments on the Rock Mine Threat in the EAA

January 24, 2025
Big Sugar and associates take advantage of holiday distraction to make major moves on their rock mine proposal.

We’ve got some troubling news to share about the proposed rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Over the holidays, a key piece of the puzzle quietly fell into place for the special interests behind this controversial project.

A state-agency letter that helps pave the path for approvals and permitting of the project was submitted while most of the world was welcoming 2025, raising serious questions about the interests at play and who might end up footing the bill.

What’s Happening?

If you’re just catching up, here’s the background: A proposed rock mine, presented as a “water resources project,” is being fast-tracked in the EAA on land owned by U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals, two prongs of the Big Sugar triad.

The mine would sit alarmingly close to the EAA Reservoir—one of the most critical components of Everglades Restoration, designed to store excess water from Lake Okeechobee, send clean flows south to Florida Bay, and mitigate harmful discharges to the coasts.

Naturally, we have our concerns with the mine and the agenda behind it. But here’s the kicker.

The same companies pushing this project—Big Sugar interests including U.S. Sugar—are actively suing the EAA Reservoir in federal court.

The contrast is stark:

  • The EAA Reservoir is an above-ground storage solution providing measurable benefits, including reduced discharges into coastal estuaries and improved water flow to the Everglades. The project also includes a critical treatment component, known as an STA, to clean the water before it’s sent through the Everglades.
  • The proposed rock mine? It’s little more than a hole in the ground with no clear benefits for Everglades Restoration, despite being sold to the public as a restoration-friendly project. The proposal for the project also doesn’t include any sort of treatment component.

The Big Update

On December 31st, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) submitted a Letter of Project Identification for the proposal (required by Palm Beach County zoning rules), officially endorsing this rock mine as a water resources project.

This seemingly small step is a critical milestone, allowing permitting for the mine to move forward. And yet, this development didn’t come with fanfare or public scrutiny. Instead, it was filed quietly over the holidays, when nary a creature was stirring, a timing choice that raises eyebrows.

But the most alarming discovery? Investigative journalist Jason Garcia uncovered that electronic metadata showed the original author of the letter was a U.S. Sugar executive.

Garcia reported:

“The so-called “letter of project identification,” which could enable the Big Sugar-backed mine to qualify for a key local permit, was signed by Drew Bartlett, the executive director of the water management district.

But records show he had help writing it.

Emails obtained by Seeking Rents show that an initial draft of the letter was given to Bartlett by an executive at Phillips & Jordan, the construction contractor hired to build the roughly 13-square mile rock mine.

And electronic metadata on that draft show the original author was an executive at U.S. Sugar Corp. — which, along with fellow sugar producer Florida Crystals, owns the limestone that would be strip-mined from the land, crushed into aggregate, and sold as construction material.”

This revelation adds a new layer of concern and underscores the need for transparency in a process that increasingly feels driven by special interests rather than public benefit.

https://captainsforcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/No-Rock-Mining-Everglades-4.jpg

Who’s Paying for This?

One of the most pressing unanswered questions is: Who will fund this project?

If past projects are any indication, the funding could fall on taxpayers. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that special-interest projects were quietly subsidized by public funds.

Consider the C-51 Reservoir, another controversial project with questionable benefits. Initially presented as a water resource initiative, it ultimately relied on state legislature appropriations to secure funding—shifting the financial burden onto taxpayers.

Will this rock mine follow a similar playbook? That remains to be seen, but the signs are troubling.

Garcia’s reporting adds even more credence to that concern, noting that multiple references in the rock mine project paperwork specifically mention “project grants and appropriations.” This language strongly suggests that those behind the project are already positioning themselves to tap into public funds.

The risk is clear: A project that offers minimal to no public benefit could be subsidized by taxpayer dollars, all while diverting attention and resources from legitimate Everglades Restoration efforts.

https://captainsforcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Member-Ad.gif

Why This Matters

The EAA Reservoir is one of the most impactful components of Everglades Restoration. It’s a project with proven benefits: reducing harmful discharges into coastal waters and restoring the natural flow of water south to Florida Bay.

The proposed rock mine threatens to derail this progress under the guise of a restoration-friendly project. The shady timing of the letter’s submission, combined with the involvement of special-interest players like U.S. Sugar, underscores the need for vigilance.

This is more than just a local issue. It’s a cautionary tale about how restoration efforts can be undermined by powerful interests operating behind closed doors.

Stay Tuned

We’re keeping a close eye on this situation and will provide updates as new information emerges. For now, stay informed, stay skeptical, and help shine a light on these backdoor maneuvers.

To learn more about the issue, check out our deep-dive blog or Jason Garcia’s original report.

Big Sugar and associates take advantage of holiday distraction to make major moves on their rock mine proposal.

We’ve got some troubling news to share about the proposed rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Over the holidays, a key piece of the puzzle quietly fell into place for the special interests behind this controversial project.

A state-agency letter that helps pave the path for approvals and permitting of the project was submitted while most of the world was welcoming 2025, raising serious questions about the interests at play and who might end up footing the bill.

What’s Happening?

If you’re just catching up, here’s the background: A proposed rock mine, presented as a “water resources project,” is being fast-tracked in the EAA on land owned by U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals, two prongs of the Big Sugar triad.

The mine would sit alarmingly close to the EAA Reservoir—one of the most critical components of Everglades Restoration, designed to store excess water from Lake Okeechobee, send clean flows south to Florida Bay, and mitigate harmful discharges to the coasts.

Naturally, we have our concerns with the mine and the agenda behind it. But here’s the kicker.

The same companies pushing this project—Big Sugar interests including U.S. Sugar—are actively suing the EAA Reservoir in federal court.

The contrast is stark:

  • The EAA Reservoir is an above-ground storage solution providing measurable benefits, including reduced discharges into coastal estuaries and improved water flow to the Everglades. The project also includes a critical treatment component, known as an STA, to clean the water before it’s sent through the Everglades.
  • The proposed rock mine? It’s little more than a hole in the ground with no clear benefits for Everglades Restoration, despite being sold to the public as a restoration-friendly project. The proposal for the project also doesn’t include any sort of treatment component.

The Big Update

On December 31st, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) submitted a Letter of Project Identification for the proposal (required by Palm Beach County zoning rules), officially endorsing this rock mine as a water resources project.

This seemingly small step is a critical milestone, allowing permitting for the mine to move forward. And yet, this development didn’t come with fanfare or public scrutiny. Instead, it was filed quietly over the holidays, when nary a creature was stirring, a timing choice that raises eyebrows.

But the most alarming discovery? Investigative journalist Jason Garcia uncovered that electronic metadata showed the original author of the letter was a U.S. Sugar executive.

Garcia reported:

“The so-called “letter of project identification,” which could enable the Big Sugar-backed mine to qualify for a key local permit, was signed by Drew Bartlett, the executive director of the water management district.

But records show he had help writing it.

Emails obtained by Seeking Rents show that an initial draft of the letter was given to Bartlett by an executive at Phillips & Jordan, the construction contractor hired to build the roughly 13-square mile rock mine.

And electronic metadata on that draft show the original author was an executive at U.S. Sugar Corp. — which, along with fellow sugar producer Florida Crystals, owns the limestone that would be strip-mined from the land, crushed into aggregate, and sold as construction material.”

This revelation adds a new layer of concern and underscores the need for transparency in a process that increasingly feels driven by special interests rather than public benefit.

https://captainsforcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/No-Rock-Mining-Everglades-4.jpg

Who’s Paying for This?

One of the most pressing unanswered questions is: Who will fund this project?

If past projects are any indication, the funding could fall on taxpayers. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that special-interest projects were quietly subsidized by public funds.

Consider the C-51 Reservoir, another controversial project with questionable benefits. Initially presented as a water resource initiative, it ultimately relied on state legislature appropriations to secure funding—shifting the financial burden onto taxpayers.

Will this rock mine follow a similar playbook? That remains to be seen, but the signs are troubling.

Garcia’s reporting adds even more credence to that concern, noting that multiple references in the rock mine project paperwork specifically mention “project grants and appropriations.” This language strongly suggests that those behind the project are already positioning themselves to tap into public funds.

The risk is clear: A project that offers minimal to no public benefit could be subsidized by taxpayer dollars, all while diverting attention and resources from legitimate Everglades Restoration efforts.

https://captainsforcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Member-Ad.gif

Why This Matters

The EAA Reservoir is one of the most impactful components of Everglades Restoration. It’s a project with proven benefits: reducing harmful discharges into coastal waters and restoring the natural flow of water south to Florida Bay.

The proposed rock mine threatens to derail this progress under the guise of a restoration-friendly project. The shady timing of the letter’s submission, combined with the involvement of special-interest players like U.S. Sugar, underscores the need for vigilance.

This is more than just a local issue. It’s a cautionary tale about how restoration efforts can be undermined by powerful interests operating behind closed doors.

Stay Tuned

We’re keeping a close eye on this situation and will provide updates as new information emerges. For now, stay informed, stay skeptical, and help shine a light on these backdoor maneuvers.

To learn more about the issue, check out our deep-dive blog or Jason Garcia’s original report.