Is the LOSOM wait finally over?

Could it be true? Could we be nearing the LOSOM finish line?

More than five years ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began holding public meetings around South Florida to tout the development of a new “Lake Okeechobee System Operating Manual,” to replace the existing playbook (“LORS08”). There were workshops, virtual meetings, computer models, impact statements, “radar graphs” and more — all of it, to devise a plan to manage the lake with more flexibility. Meaning, maybe those of us along the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries might catch a break.

But there were delays, most recently a request for a “biological opinion” from NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service to gauge the impact of LOSOM on endangered sea turtles.

Now, however, our friends at Friends of the Everglades confirmed the final LOSOM report will be released on Friday, May 24. Then, after a 30-day review period, LOSOM is expected to take effect once signed by Army Corps of Engineers Commander Brig. Gen. Hibner in mid-August.

VoteWater (as Bullsugar.org) was involved in the LOSOM process from the beginning, and we’re ecstatic to see the plan heading toward implementation. It’s not “the” answer to damaging discharges, but it is part of the complex puzzle; it's expected to result in fewer harmful discharges to the northern estuaries and increased flows south to the Everglades.

Big Sugar and its proxies fought the plan every step of the way, and continue to bad-mouth it to this day. But for most of us, it represents an improvement — more than five years in the making.

Know hope — and stay tuned.

Deep Dive: As STA costs rise, Big Sugar's share of the bill falls

In our last “Deep Dive,” we noted how stormwater treatment areas — 62,000-acres of man-made wetlands south of Lake Okeechobee designed to clean water headed to the Everglades — could be used to mitigate harmful Lake O discharges to the St. Lucie River and Caloosahatchee River estuaries.

Instead, the STAs are used almost exclusively to clean water coming off farmland (mostly sugarcane fields) in the Everglades Agricultural Area to keep it from polluting the Everglades.

Taxpayers on the whole spent $1.2 billion to build the STAs, and split the cost of operations and maintenance with with EAA farmers, who pay an "agricultural privilege tax" to fund their share. Problem is, beginning in a few years that tax rate will begin to decline, meaning that as Big Sugar pays less, other taxpayers — you — will be paying more.

Does that sound fair to you? Wait 'til you see how much more you'll be paying. For more on this "Deep Dive," click the link below.

Move to convince EPA to set cyanotoxin standards could be a game-changer

The following two paragraphs, from a TCPalm story by reporter Ed Killer last week, are music to our ears:

The city of Stuart, the nonprofit Friends of the Everglades and four other environmental advocacy organizations plan to file a petition May 23 urging the Environmental Protection Agency to set numeric criteria for cyanotoxins.

If the EPA did that, the agency could — using laws already in the Clean Water Act — force Florida to regularly sample waterways for harmful toxins and enforce state pollution laws through programs such as the Basin Management Action Plan. It also could prevent toxic algae from being discharged into the St. Lucie River.

The Center for Biological Diversity is leading the effort, which could, as described, make a huge difference. It could force the state to do routine testing for cyanotoxins, issue health alerts sooner, and get serious about meeting pollution-reduction goals. Most importantly — see that line about preventing toxic algae from being discharged into the St. Lucie.

If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is unable to discharge water from Lake Okeechobee when toxic algae was present — what then? Could this ultimately prompt a move to build more water storage and treatment south of Lake O, as we and others have been advocating for years?

Read the whole story at the link below.