LOSOM process took five years and it still hasn't been enacted - do sugar interests think they can still change it?   Aerial pic of Lake Okeechobee algae bloom in 2018 courtesy Jacqui Thurlow-Lippisch So whatever happened to LOSOM? (And why is Big Sugar STILL trying to game the outcome?) Hm. Seems we remember this new "lake management plan" that was being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Lake O... what was that called again? Oh, right — LOSOM. Whatever happened to LOSOM, anyway? As Ed Killer at TCPalm noted last week, it's been five long years since the LOSOM process began, and now the proposal lingers in some kind of bureaucratic purgatory. The Corps had to prepare a "biological opinion" on endangered species requested by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which basically wanted to know how LOSOM would impact sea turtles. That opinion was completed, NMFS was reportedly satisfied and LOSOM needed to be tweaked but without any major changes, Corps officials have said in recent months. But it's still not ready to implement. When will it be? "Sometime this year," said the Corps' Maj. Corey Bell at a recent Rivers Coalition meeting in Stuart. Hurry up and wait. The good news is the Corps has been managing the lake with the type of flexibility that will be enshrined in LOSOM. Were the lake being managed in strict accordance with LORS08, the coasts would be getting pummeled with damaging discharges right now. So there's that. The bad news is that the usual suspects are still taking potshots at LOSOM, as if they can get changes enacted at this late hour — and maybe they can, which is why they're taking those potshots. For example, this commentary (paywalled) from Ryan Rossi of the South Florida Water Coalition (which represents water users, chief among them Big Sugar). Rossi rips the "flexibility and balance" in LOSOM and in the way the Corps has managed the lake lately. Writes Rossi: "South Florida must depend on a stable water supply while maintaining drought protections for residents and southerly flow to help replenish the Everglades when needed." What's missing from that sentence? How about preventing devastating discharges to the coast? Were the lake managed the way Rossi suggests, coastal communities would see a whole lot more of those discharges. Apparently that's just fine with the South Florida (Sugar) Water Coalition. Big Sugar has tried to circumvent LOSOM before. And the closing line of Rossi's piece ("South Florida deserves better — and time is running out to get it right") suggests they're still trying to circumvent LOSOM now. But as we stare down a higher-than-usual-for-this-time-of-year lake, we need LOSOM to enshrine the flexibility required to serve ALL stakeholders, which minimizes harm to our estuaries, to marine life — and our communities. CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO VOTEWATER These bills could put the kibosh on growth too close to the Everglades Now for some good news — maybe. While a myriad of bad bills continue to move through the legislative process — including numerous bills seeking to “expedite” the building permit process, which we fear will mean less oversight and more sprawl — one good pair of proposals is also making headway: House Bill 723/Senate Bill 1364 would require that any comprehensive plan or plan amendment within two miles of the Everglades Protection Area in Miami-Dade County must go through a state-coordinated review process. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection must then figure out if the proposal adversely affects the Everglades Protection Area or Everglades restoration; and steps must be taken to eliminate or mitigate those effects. Several proposals in recent years have encroached on the Everglades Protection Area, including the proposed “Kendall Parkway” extension of State Road 836 and a Miami-Dade plan to extend the “urban development boundary” to build a 379-acre industrial complex in Homestead, west of Biscayne Bay. As time goes by we can expect more encroachment; developers would pave over the Everglades if it were possible. HB 723 and SB 1364 are an attempt to make sure it isn’t — and in fact there have been numerous attempts over the years to get legislation along these lines passed; last year’s Senate Bill 192 made it all the way to the Senate floor before petering out. Maybe this is finally the year. Both HB 723 and SB 1364 have cleared their first committee stops; SB 1364 cleared its second stop when the Senate Agriculture Committee passed it unanimously on Tuesday. It now moves to Rules.   Lake O watch: High water isn't the only issue Credit to our friends at Calusa Waterkeeper, who in a Facebook post over the weekend quipped: "Early February and starting to see cyanobacteria bloom getting going on (a very high) Lake." The image is from Feb. 2; notes NOAA (the source of the image), "The algal bloom covers about 40 square miles, which is unchanged from Jan. 5." So it's not getting worse. But it's also not getting better. We've still got months to go before the annual toxic algae blooms begin in earnest, but given that the lake continues to rise (16.35 feet as of this writing), this stuff could be coming our way this spring if we get discharges. Again. ICYMI: Fixing the Indian River Lagoon will cost... In our latest "Deep Dive," we dig into the problems facing the Indian River Lagoon, and tally up how much money it will take to repair the damage. With the state funneling millions to the new "Indian River Lagoon Protection Program," things are on the cusp of improvement — but it'll take billions with a "B" to really make a difference. READ THE REPORT BECOME A MEMBER DONATE VoteWater 3727 SE Ocean Blvd Suite 200-A Stuart, FL 34996 | (772) 212-2939 VoteWater | 3727 SE Ocean Blvd, Suite 200-A, Stuart, FL 34996 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected] powered by Try email marketing for free today!