The top 5 reasons we oppose Big Sugar’s proposal for a rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area.
The proposed rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) raises serious concerns that extend far beyond its misleading label as a “water resources project.” Here are our top grievances—and why this project is bad news for Florida’s waters and taxpayers.
1. A Threat to the EAA Reservoir
The EAA Reservoir is one of the most critical components of Everglades Restoration, designed to store excess water from Lake Okeechobee, mitigate harmful discharges, and send clean water south to Florida Bay.
This proposed rock mine sits alarmingly close to the reservoir, posing significant risks to its stability and long-term functionality. The proximity of mining operations to such critical infrastructure raises concerns about potential damage to the reservoir, seepage issues, and even structural threats. If the reservoir’s operations are compromised, decades of restoration progress could be jeopardized.
Not to mention, this special-interest proposal distracts from advancing the EAA Reservoir, diluting focus—and potentially funding—from the more important, science-backed project.
2. Misleading “Water Resources Project” Label with Decades of Mining First
The rock mine has been framed as a “water resources project,” but that generous label just doesn’t hold water. According to the project’s DEP application, mining would take place for 30 years before the site could transition into any water-related use.
During this extended period, the site would serve as little more than a mining operation with no measurable benefits for water storage or Everglades Restoration. By the time any “water resources” component is implemented, it will likely be decades too late to provide meaningful value. This designation feels like a bait-and-switch to advance private interests while masking the true purpose of the project.

3. Big Sugar Proposes this Reservoir, While Suing Another
Adding to the concerns, the companies backing the rock mine—U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals—are actively suing over the EAA Reservoir. This creates a glaring conflict of interest, as the same entities opposing one of the most important Everglades Restoration projects are proposing this nearby project that directly threatens its success.
Their lawsuit against the EAA Reservoir demonstrates their opposition to restoration efforts, making their claim that the rock mine is a “water resources project” even harder to believe.
4. Special Interest Influence and Lack of Transparency
One of the most troubling revelations about this project is the metadata on the Letter of Project Identification submitted by SFWMD. Investigative reporting revealed that the letter, which helps pave a path forward for permitting and approvals, was originally authored by a U.S. Sugar executive, a clear indication of special-interest involvement in a supposedly public decision.
To make matters worse, the letter was submitted on New Year’s Eve—a time when public oversight is minimal—and no public hearings have been held to date. This lack of transparency undermines trust and raises serious questions about the integrity of the approval process.

Florida House of Representatives lobbyist disclosure information indicates registered Florida Crystals lobbyists intend to surface “water storage funding” during the upcoming 2025 state legislative session.
5. Taxpayer Dollars at Risk
The project’s documentation includes references to “project grants and appropriations,” which suggests that taxpayers may ultimately bear the financial burden for this endeavor. This model mirrors the funding of the controversial C-51 Reservoir, where over $250 million in public funds were allocated to a project with limited public benefit.
Also, two lobbyists from Florida Crystals (one of the stakeholders in the rock mine) recently registered with the Florida House of Representatives, filing for the upcoming legislative session. In their lobbyist disclosure, they listed “water storage funding” as an issue category, further indicating an effort to secure public funding for the project. Floridians could be forced to subsidize a project that benefits private interests while offering little in return for the environment or the public.
Why This Matters
The Everglades and Florida’s waters are too important to gamble on risky, misleading projects like the rock mine. From its deceptive framing to the financial burden it could place on taxpayers, this proposal poses serious threats to restoration efforts, public trust, and our region’s future.
We’ll continue to fight for transparency and accountability to protect Florida’s waters from harmful projects like this. Stay informed and join us in holding decision-makers accountable.
The top 5 reasons we oppose Big Sugar’s proposal for a rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area.
The proposed rock mine in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) raises serious concerns that extend far beyond its misleading label as a “water resources project.” Here are our top grievances—and why this project is bad news for Florida’s waters and taxpayers.
1. A Threat to the EAA Reservoir
The EAA Reservoir is one of the most critical components of Everglades Restoration, designed to store excess water from Lake Okeechobee, mitigate harmful discharges, and send clean water south to Florida Bay.
This proposed rock mine sits alarmingly close to the reservoir, posing significant risks to its stability and long-term functionality. The proximity of mining operations to such critical infrastructure raises concerns about potential damage to the reservoir, seepage issues, and even structural threats. If the reservoir’s operations are compromised, decades of restoration progress could be jeopardized.
Not to mention, this special-interest proposal distracts from advancing the EAA Reservoir, diluting focus—and potentially funding—from the more important, science-backed project.
2. Misleading “Water Resources Project” Label with Decades of Mining First
The rock mine has been framed as a “water resources project,” but that generous label just doesn’t hold water. According to the project’s DEP application, mining would take place for 30 years before the site could transition into any water-related use.
During this extended period, the site would serve as little more than a mining operation with no measurable benefits for water storage or Everglades Restoration. By the time any “water resources” component is implemented, it will likely be decades too late to provide meaningful value. This designation feels like a bait-and-switch to advance private interests while masking the true purpose of the project.

3. Big Sugar Proposes this Reservoir, While Suing Another
Adding to the concerns, the companies backing the rock mine—U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals—are actively suing over the EAA Reservoir. This creates a glaring conflict of interest, as the same entities opposing one of the most important Everglades Restoration projects are proposing this nearby project that directly threatens its success.
Their lawsuit against the EAA Reservoir demonstrates their opposition to restoration efforts, making their claim that the rock mine is a “water resources project” even harder to believe.
4. Special Interest Influence and Lack of Transparency
One of the most troubling revelations about this project is the metadata on the Letter of Project Identification submitted by SFWMD. Investigative reporting revealed that the letter, which helps pave a path forward for permitting and approvals, was originally authored by a U.S. Sugar executive, a clear indication of special-interest involvement in a supposedly public decision.
To make matters worse, the letter was submitted on New Year’s Eve—a time when public oversight is minimal—and no public hearings have been held to date. This lack of transparency undermines trust and raises serious questions about the integrity of the approval process.

Florida House of Representatives lobbyist disclosure information indicates registered Florida Crystals lobbyists intend to surface “water storage funding” during the upcoming 2025 state legislative session.
5. Taxpayer Dollars at Risk
The project’s documentation includes references to “project grants and appropriations,” which suggests that taxpayers may ultimately bear the financial burden for this endeavor. This model mirrors the funding of the controversial C-51 Reservoir, where over $250 million in public funds were allocated to a project with limited public benefit.
Also, two lobbyists from Florida Crystals (one of the stakeholders in the rock mine) recently registered with the Florida House of Representatives, filing for the upcoming legislative session. In their lobbyist disclosure, they listed “water storage funding” as an issue category, further indicating an effort to secure public funding for the project. Floridians could be forced to subsidize a project that benefits private interests while offering little in return for the environment or the public.
Why This Matters
The Everglades and Florida’s waters are too important to gamble on risky, misleading projects like the rock mine. From its deceptive framing to the financial burden it could place on taxpayers, this proposal poses serious threats to restoration efforts, public trust, and our region’s future.
We’ll continue to fight for transparency and accountability to protect Florida’s waters from harmful projects like this. Stay informed and join us in holding decision-makers accountable.