AP: Judge warns EPA of contempt in Everglades case

BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal judge in Miami on Wednesday threatened the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with contempt of court in a ruling that accuses the agency of ignoring federal Clean Water Act requirements in Florida's Everglades.

"I express in the strongest possible terms my frustration and disappointment," U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold wrote in his ruling.

Gold ruled in 2008 that the EPA had turned a "blind eye" to Florida's Everglades cleanup efforts, while the state continued to violate its own commitment to restore the vast ecosystem.

He ordered the EPA to review water pollution standards and timelines set by the state.

Gold wrote Wednesday that the EPA and Florida have ignored his previous order.

"The defendants are hereby placed on notice that failure to comply with the terms of this order will not be tolerated," Gold wrote.

Gold also ordered EPA's administrator to appear in his courtroom for an Oct. 7 hearing to report on compliance with his latest ruling.

"The federal court is not accepting the excuses and delays anymore," said Dexter Lehtinen, a lawyer representing the Miccosukee Indians, who live in the Everglades. "It is recognizing the ongoing harm, and that's what the state and federal governments have not been willing to do."

The EPA had no comment Wednesday. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection said in a statement it was disappointed.

"The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) maintains that its permitting actions have been consistent with the Clean Water Act, Florida law and the court's earlier order," according to the statement, which also said the agency would appeal the ruling.

The Miccosukee and Friends of the Everglades sued the EPA in 2004. They claimed the agency violated the Clean Water Act by allowing Florida to change its water pollution requirements for the Everglades and delay its pollution compliance deadlines.

In his 2008 ruling, Gold noted that the Florida Legislature "violated its fundamental commitment and promise to protect the Everglades."

The case centered on a 2003 amendment to the state's 1994 Everglades Forever Act.

Florida was originally supposed to meet lower phosphorous levels in the Everglades by 2002. The 1994 act pushed that deadline to 2006.

The amendment changed the timeline again, making it more ambiguous by setting a date of 2016 at the earliest.

Gold wrote Wednesday that the changes were "so complex as to be incomprehensible to lay persons."

"None of the government agencies involved directly told the public the hard truth: We have not solved the problem, we don't know for sure when the problem will be solved, and we do not know if the Everglades will survive," Gold noted.

Gold said in 2008 the EPA failed to abide by federal law when it did nothing to stop Florida from amending its statute that put off its timeline for cleaning up the Everglades.

The phosphorous pollution comes largely from fertilizer runoff from farms and development. The nutrient has long suffocated life in the Everglades, driving out native species and poisoning the water.

The entire wetlands once covered more than 6,250 square miles, but have shrunk by half, replaced with homes and farms and a 2,000-mile grid of drainage canals. The Everglades has since lost 90 percent of its wading birds, and 68 threatened or endangered species face extreme peril.

The restoration effort is the largest of its kind in the world.

"The hard reality is that ongoing destruction ... continues to this day at an alarming rate," Gold wrote.

Gold also questioned how the state's plan to spend $536 million for 73,000 acres of U.S. Sugar Corp. farmland in the Everglades would help with restoration efforts. The deal has already faced numerous obstacles and has been lambasted by critics as a waste of taxpayer money that will only further delay Everglades restoration. The state Supreme Court is set to rule soon on whether Florida can move forward with the deal.

"No scientific analysis has been conducted to determine if such a purchase, and related postponement of construction projects to finance it, would either further or hinder achievement of the now mandatory phosphorous criteria," Gold wrote.

(Click on link to right to read Judge GOld's Order in its entirety)