What started as an attempt to restore the Florida Everglades has turned into a crucial property rights case that has pitted a group of sugar farmers and municipalities against the federal government.

On Nov. 5, the coalition filed suit in the District of Columbia seeking an injunction. The group is trying to prevent the federal government from closing Dec. 17 on its proposed purchase of the Talisman Sugar Farm, which includes about 50,000 acres of rich farmland and a sugar mill in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

"Unless the federal government plans to permanently farm the land and run the mill, this purchase could have devastating effects on Belle Glade and other farm communities," said Belle Glade City Manager Mike Miller. "There is a process to determine these impacts so that an informed decision can be made, and the federal government must abide by this process."

The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Interior has not examined the environmental, social and economic effects of taking the property as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. While the Interior Department has issued a cursory environmental assessment, according to the suit, the department failed to address the negative impact of the acquisition on the local farming economy and environment.

The land, owned by the St. Joe Corporation, is being sold to the federal government with large portions of the property designated to be used for Everglades restoration. According to the government's original purchase announcement, land not needed for restoration would be swapped with nearby sugar growers to consolidate restoration land.

The suit was filed after the federal government last week rejected a land swap proposal from the state of Florida. That swap, worked out by Gov. Lawton Chiles' office, detailed Talisman lands that would be swapped for lands owned by other sugar growers.

In announcing the Talisman purchase during Everglades National Park anniversary celebrations last December, Vice President Al Gore promised that land not needed by the government for Everglades restoration would be part of the final deal, an essential condition for the farmers' support of the transaction.

Since then, however, environmental groups have vocally opposed any swap, apparently pursuing their announced policy of eliminating as much agriculture as possible from South Florida. This may have been what swayed the federal government in its refusal of the state’s proposal.

The governor's office has said it worked to get an agreement on swaps that would allow the government to acquire all the land needed for restoration while keeping as much farmland as possible in production.

"The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to prevent exactly this kind of ‘ready, fire, aim' approach to federal action," said Barbara Miedema, spokeswoman for the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida. "Many of us believe it is possible to protect both the environment and protect jobs. A more sensible approach of land trades would allow Florida to proceed with the Everglades Construction Project while protecting high-paying farming jobs."

Officials from the Interior Department could not be reached for comment.

U.S. Sugar Corp., an agricultural powerhouse in the region, declined to join the lawsuit despite the company’s sympathy for the plaintiffs.

"Everglades restoration should not have to be tied up in more litigation," said Robert Buker Jr., senior vice president of U.S. Sugar. "Mediation should be tried as a first alternative."

Buker said that last week U.S. Sugar declined a request that it join the lawsuit, but was sympathetic with those who filed the litigation.

"The federal government promised not to take any more farm land out of production than is absolutely necessary. They have not kept that promise," Buker said. "Instead, the vice president's office seems to be following the lead of environmental extremists who want all of agriculture to leave South Florida. The Talisman purchase should go forward, but as little agricultural land as possible should come out of production."

Published: November 10, 1998

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.